Was Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a prophet in year 1900?
Our friend Bashir has sent a submission under the above title. Due to its length I am posting it as a comment here. The writer has asked any enquirers to contact him for further information, as he has called this submission an abridged version.
In copying and pasting his submission, I could not carry through his use of italics and bold font for certain text. So my apologies to him for that.
I won’t comment on this except to say that the reports of who said what to whom, and when, and who reported it, don’t provide a sound way of drawing valid conclusions.
Zahid Aziz
From Bashir:
HMGA WAS A PROPHET IN 1900?
At last that event did take place. In the year l900, Maulavi ‘Aabdul Karim, the preacher of the Friday sermon, gave a sermon in which he, used the words Nabi (Prophet) and Rasul (Messenger) for the Mirza. This caused great irritation to Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohawi. When Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim came to know of this, he gave another Friday sermon in which be addressed the Mirza, requesting him to contradict his belief, if he was wrong in considering him to be a prophet and Messenger of God. After the Friday prayers were over, Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim caught hold of the skirt of the Mirza’s apparel and requested him to correct him in his beliefs if they were erroneous. The Mirza turned around and said that he, too, held the same belief. Meanwhile, Maulavi Muhammad Ahsan had been greatly agitated by the sermon and in anger was pacing the floor of the mosque. On Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim’s return, he began to quarrel with him. When their voices rose very high, the Mirza came out of his house and recited the Qur’anic verse: “O ye who believe! Don’t raise your Voice above the voice of the Prophet.” (This event is based on the report of a speech of Sayyid Sarwar Shah Qadiani at an annual conference held in Qadian, and published in al- Fadhl, Vol. X, No.51, dated january.4,1923.. See also Haqiqat al- Nubuwat, p 124.) (XLIX.2)
I have decided to investigate a certain report which infers that HMGA realized that he was a perfect prophet in 1900. I had read this report some years back(2006). At the time I didn’t realize the who, what, where and when in terms of this situation.
This report was transmitted in Haqiqat tun Nubuwwat(HN). This report was not transmitted in Qaul-al-Fasl(QAF). From 1900 to 1915 this report was not published or even spoke about by any ahmadi, whatsoever. The first fact emerges that this report did not exist for 15 years. After HN, Sarwar Shah spoke of this report, no other ahmadi has ever done so in almost 100 years.
Many objections could be raised, here are some:
1. Why did this not appear in any jamaat newspaper?
2. Why did HMGA not write EGKI in 1900?
3. Was EGKI directed at SMMA?
4. QAF was a thesis on the prophethood of HMGA, why was this important event not transmitted there?
Secondly, the witness in this report was not alive in 1915(Maulvi Abdul Karim). MAK appears to be the first ahmadi who knew that HMGA was a perfect prophet(per HMBMA). This last bit of data points towards an amazing idea, that idea is that HMGA told MAK that he was a perfect prophet, and decided not to tell anybody else, SMMA, Noorudin, m. ali etc etc etc.
The second witness, SMMA, appears to have never commented on the said report. M. ali never responded to this report.
Now i may proceed to write about the report itself. HMBMA didnt give a specific date for the said incident. I can only rely on published writings of HMGA.
Just a year before the said incident, MAK and HMGA are connected to a particular incident:
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/noclaim/state2.htm
In 1899, ahmadis were raising the position of HMGA. Thats the fact that shoots at me. MAK gives the example of how Jesus’ rank from “Son of God”(metaphor), turned into “Son of God” in the truest form and expression.
There appears to be 180 degree shift in the ideas of MAK and HMGA. Is this possible???? Sure it’s possible. We must look at other writings in the same era and see if they match up. This is what I got…………
In Arb’ain 1900, HMGA wrote:
Arba’in No. 3, (December 15, 1900), p. 25 footnote
“Here the words rasul and nabi have been used for me in God’s revelation denoting a messenger and prophet of God. These are by way of metaphor and simile. Because he who receives direct revelation from God and is honoured with divine communication … as was granted to the prophets, the use of words rasul or nabi for him is not improper, it is rather an eloquent simile.”
These are from DEC 1900, this makes the date of the report as irrelevant. It appears that this report is incorrect. HMGA was still calling himself a metaphoric prophet in late 1900. In fact HMGA called himself a metaphoric prophet in 1907(HW supplement).
One final point, I found this while surfing an anti-ahmadiyya website, obviously these guys don’t understand the significance of this report:
Seerat Ul mmwehdi part 3—by Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad
pdf Page 183 of 316
“Sheikh Abdul Haq sb s/o Sheikh Abdulla sb resident of wadala bangar, Tehsil Gurdast Pur, narrated to me in writing this incident that once an Iranian elder came to qadian and stayed for many months, I came again to qadian 3-4 months after his arrival. I saw him in Mubarak Musjid, It was probably Friday. After Friday prayers that Iranian elder requested mgaq to accept his bai’t. Huzoor said some other time or still wait some more time, upon this that Iranian elder started talking in loud voice which meant either accpet my bai’t or allow me to leave your place. He kept repeating these words in loud voice. At that time, moulvi Muhammaed Ahsan (late) stood up and read this ayat of Surat Hajrat:O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and said that it was not befitting a faithful to raise his voice louder than nabi, this is disrespect you should not do this, but that Irani elder did not change his tone. Finally some men calmed him and took him outside the mosque, I don’t know if he stayed here or went and his bait was accepted or not. ”
This story almost matches identically with the story of HMBMA, what am I suppose to think at this point???
It seems that this story was transmitted to solve with riddle of EGKI. More specifically, to counteract the first paragraph of EGKI. The first paragraph of EGKI must have been deemed as contradictory to the theory of “tabdili aqidah”. HMBMA must have noticed that there were no other writings between Arb’aain and EGKI that could prove that this was an era of change.
These are my findings. For the full version of the email contact me xobashir@hotmail.com.
From Abdul Momin:
While it is highly commendable that someone should spend so much time and research on finding out the truth as it relates to HMGA’s claims- I fervently hope that more Qadiani jamaat members will reflect on this issue- one very important aspect of this dispute should not be overlooked. The status of HMGA was not just a theological dispute between two sections of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat, but also (mostly) a political one. How else can one explain this strange anomaly that HMGA went seamlessly from a non-Prophet to a Prophet during his lifetime without any objection or dissent from his followers or opposition from his adversaries and yet a few years after his death, this became such a hot issue amongst his followers, that it caused a split in his jamaat? To this day this is the issue which divides the two jamaats: the status of HMGA.
There are certain things people brought up in the western world are not aware of regarding eastern culture. Most people not being very objective in their outlook, have a high degree of attachment to the heirs of a deceased spiritual mentor, to the point of ignoring any shortcomings those heirs may have, even if they conrtadict the teachings of the original spiritual guide. Throughout Islamic history, the relatives of a spiritual guide have become pirs and heads of religious orders, and people have blindly followed them, offer donations and pay them respects as if they were the original spiritual guides. In fact the monetary contributions of their followers becomes an important source of income for these pirs. This kind of attachment to the family of a deceased leader is not restricted to the religious realm; it is visible in politics as well. Pakistan’s most prominent political party has been ruled by members of one family, while the second-largest and third-largest parties are also family affairs. Examples are the Bhutto, Sharif, Zahoor Elahi, Mufti Mahmood families where one relative or the other succeeds another. It seems that after a political or religious leader has passed away, his followers can only unite under that leader’s close relatives.
To some extent this problem is present in western countries as well. The successors or would be successors of well known theologians, Pastor Billy Graham, Robert Shuller, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and the late Pastor Osteen etc. are their sons.
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (supported by his grandfather and others) deliberately created an issue or diversion in the jamaat to advance his claim for becoming the Khalifa. At the age he started his quest he had just crossed his teen years (an age associated with rebellious tendencies). I have no doubt that if Maulvi Nuruddin had been a much younger man than he was when he became Khalifa, he would have faced a challenge from the young MM Ahmad too, because MM Ahmad Saheb would not have wanted to wait decades (for Maulvi Nuruddin to die) to become Khalifa.
How many leaders in the Muslim world are intellectuals? At the time of the Split, on the one hand there was a highly learned person and intellectual (Maulvi Muhammad Ali), while on the other hand was the son of HMGA. As I have just explained above, it is not hard to see why most of the followers associated themselves with Qadian rather than with Lahore.
From Hassan:
Dear all,
assalamualaikum wr wb
I just want to share to follower of Lahore ahmadiyyat Please read your article from website http://www.aaiil.org
MGA said: “It was also ordained that the last successor of the Holy Prophet, the Promised Messiah should be called a PROPHET” etc..
http://www.aaiil.org/text/articles/reviewofreligions/1903/reviewreligionsenglish190311_190312.pdf
see page: 437
and Khwaja Kamaluddin notes:
Jehad was never denounced or disbelieved by the PROPHET of Qadian and the same of Aligarh (MGA and Sayid Ahmad Khan)
http://www.aaiil.org/text/articles/islamicreview/1913/feb/feb1913.shtml
so what do you think…?
Salam,
From Bashir:
Abdul Momin, thanks for the insight. The split always bothered me as a child(born in 1979). I always thought, how could ahmadiyyat be the true path when there was a huge blemish on the surface??? The split is the biggest blemish on ahmadiyyat. After researching the split it is evident that the intellectuals joined the aaiil, while the vast majority of the movement(who were illiterate) stayed put. It’s obvious that the community(in1914) didnt research the issues.
Back in the early 90’s it was impossible to study the split. But because of the internet, literature is easily available. Thats the difference. I think all ahmadis have the responsibility to research their religion. I dont think ahmadis care, I didnt until 2005 when I got married.
From Zahid Aziz:
This is in response to Mr Hassan’s comments.
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is explaining how the Promised Messiah could be called ‘prophet’ despite the fact (yes, the fact) that the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the last prophet. Please read starting from the last lines of page 436:
“I stated that the Holy Prophet was the last of prophets …”.
This is a translation from HMGA’s book Tazkirat-ush-Shahadatain. If you look in the original Urdu book (p. 43) the above line literally reads: “…the Holy Prophet Muhammad was the Khatam-ul-anbiya and no prophet was to come after him”.
And on page 437, from which you have quoted, it is written:
“…so that it may be a sign that the Holy Prophet was the last prophet, and that thus the finality of his prophethod should be established”.
Regarding the quote from Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, please read it more carefully:
“… the prophet of Qadian and the same of Aligarh. They believed in it as an article of faith … They taught us …”
If he is calling HMGA as prophet of Qadian, then he is also calling Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan as prophet of Aligarh in the words “the same of Aligarh“! This shows the sense in which he is applying this word, as both had a mission of reform.
Incidentally, this article by the Khwaja sahib also shows: (1) that HMGA never denied the Islamic teaching on jihad, as alleged by the anti-Ahmadiyya propagandists, and (2) Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din vigorously promoted the national causes of the Muslims in his work in the West.
To view this issue of The Islamic Review more conveniently in pdf format, please go to this link.
From Hassan:
Dear Zahid
Please read the next line in your article, MGA explaining that:
The Prophethood of the Promised Messiah morevers not a substantial and independent prophethood but one acquire through the Holy Prophet. It is on account of his being a perfect manifestation of the Holy Prophet that he (promised Messiah) has received the title of a PROPHET.
The above is the same what the qadiani explanation of the Prophethood of the Promised Messiah.
so what difference?
Conclusion is YES that The Holy Prophet was the Last Prophet for independent prophethood
but the prophethood throught the Holy Prophet can be acquired
It is as Allah promise in Qur’an An Nissa :69
2. “If he is calling HMGA as prophet of Qadian, then he is also calling Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan as prophet of Aligarh in the words “the same of Aligarh“! ”
Whatever you said, but it is clearly mentioned in your website that one of the founder Lahore has calling HMGA and Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan as PROPHETS
ALL ABOVE THE FACT LAHORE BELIEVE THAT MGA WAS THE PROPHET BEFORE THE SPLIT
salam,
From Abdul Momin:
Bashir, you are welcome. I share many of your sentiments. The split and more particularly the idea of a prophet after the Holy Prophet of Islam has caused a lot of damage to this movement. There was a time when most Muslim intellectuals deeply admired the movement started by HMGA. HMGA’s defence of Islam in a rational way (especially his defence against Christainity) by proving from the Holy Quran the death of Jesus, led even many of the opponents of the Ahmadiyya movement to believe that Jesus was dead. That is not a small achievement. But unfortunately his son undid a lot of the work that HMGA accomplished. It is because of his son that the name of HMGA is so reviled in the Muslim world.
During his lifetime whenever his opponents accused him of claiming prophethood, HMGA was there to defend himself. Now after his death, his opponents do not even have to make a case against him; all they have to do is quote from Qadiani literature to prove that HMGA was a claimant to real prophethood. What a tragedy!
On the AAIIL website there is a book (in Urdu) which discusses MM Ahmad’s statement in front of a court in 1953. In this book it is shown that when asked by the court as to when HMGA first claimed prophethood, the response was “1891”! So MM Ahmad is full of inconsistencies (1902, 1901 and 1891). In front of that court, he changed his earlier belief of considering all Muslims as Kafir (those who did not believe HMGA as a prophet). In another book by Maudoodi “Qadiani Masala”, it was stated that he had adopted exactly the beliefs of AAIIL in front of that court. Maulana Maudoodi was not a friend of the Lahoris or Qadianis.
From Zahid Aziz:
Dear Mr Hassan
1. The answer to your question “so what is the difference” between ours and the Qadiani explanation is contained in my first reply to you. Hazrat Mirza sahib has written here:
“…the Holy Prophet Muhammad was the Khatam-ul-anbiya and no prophet was to come after him”.
Qadianis don’t hold this view as expressed above. He does not make any exception here.
He then goes on to say that after the 13 centuries of Islam belief in the finality of prophethood had become thoroughly established. So if after that, the Promised Messiah is called “prophet” this cannot be used to reject belief in the finality of prophethood.
The Qadiani belief is the opposite of this. They hold that because the Promised Messiah is called “prophet” therefore people should reject the view that prophethood ended with the Holy Prophet.
The Promised Messiah has also written that his revelations show him to be God, even more so than Jesus’ claims in the Gospels show him to be God. But we don’t believe him to be God because we would be rejecting the Islamic belief that God is One.
2. My answer about Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din’s statement was so clear that I should not need to repeat it. Yes, you can say, as you do, that Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din has applied the title “prophet” to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the same way as he applied it to Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan. Do Qadianis also apply it to both?
Zahid Aziz
From Bashir:
For Abdul Momin:
I can’t understand why ahmadiyyat had this split. It really bothers me. Anyways……
I have read the statements made by HMBMA in 1954, I have written about this as well. His statement there matches exactly to what KK wrote in 1911. The statement that was made by HMBMA was different then what he wrote from 1911 to 1922.
I wrote a small article about this, it’s in my notes, the title was “Kafir, an 11 year theory”. I can send it to you if needed. I have to find it……
I didnt know of the comments by Maudoodi about what HMBMA said. I have never read Qadiani Masala. Do you have that in english???? I found his other book “The qadiani Problem” on some anti ahmadiyya website. I am intrigued by this book. Please help.
xobashir@hotmail.com
From Abdul Momin:
Bashir, I believe that “The Qadiani problem” book is the same as Qadiani Masala because literally it means the same thing. While in Pakistan, we had this book in our home a long time back, but not anymore. Maulana Maudoodi wrote in Urdu only as far as I know, and if The Qadiani Problem is written in English than someone must have translated Qadiani Masala from Urdu. Whether it is a complete translation I do not know. I too, downloaded Qadiani Masala from an anti-Ahmadi website and it sits on my hard disk. I can only send it to you in Urdu.
But again I must warn you that this whole prophethood issue is cloaked in politics.
The split was the result of politics Act I. This was the internal politics of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat.
The Khatme-Nabuwwat (Finality of Prophethood) Movements are the result of politics, Act II. This was the politics between the Qadiani Jamaat and a political religious party called Majlis-e-Ahrar. The second politics had absolutely nothing to do with AAIIL, but being followers of HMGA got unnecessarily trapped in it. So AAIIL has been paying the price for something it does not even believe in, namely the so-called prophethood of HMGA.
Maudoodi in the 1930’s was a much more moderate religious leader, but in the cut-throat atmosphere of the Khatme-Nabuwwat movement, had to adopt a hard line in 1953. With the passage of time as his party got deeper and deeper into politics, he only got worse. This is an abject lesson for all religious (including the Qadianis) parties: Do not mix Religion with Politics.
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was the common element in both politics, i.e. the internal Ahmadiyya Jamaat politics as well as the politics concerning the Ahraris. And he made a mess of both. To this day we are paying the price.
As Mark Antony says in Shakespeare: The evil that men do lives after them; the good is often interred with the bones.
I do not mean to call even a single member of the Qadiani Jamaat, evil. What I mean is that the evil of that split and its consequences live on and are still with us.
From Tahir Ijaz:
In reference to Hazrat Maulvi Abdul Karim (ra) the personage mentioned in that incident in 1900, in 1902 Maulvi Abdul Karim wrote:
“In 1300 years (i.e since death of Holy Prophet) nobody has had the opportunity to recite before an audience, ‘surely a Messenger has come unto you from among yourselves’ (Quran 9:28) and God’s Rasul and mamur is actually sitting in front of him. Praise be to Allah, we are blessed” (Al Hakam Nov 24, 1902).
It would thus appear he considered Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) an actual Rasul after the Holy Prophet (saw) since this situation had not happened before.
From Zahid Aziz:
Does it mean that this verse (9:128), “A Messenger has come to you from among yourselves…” referred to the Holy Prophet Muhammad previously, but since 1902 no longer refers to the Holy Prophet but the Promised Messiah? And who does it refer to now in the present tense?
Simlarly, does it mean that all other verses such as the following refer to the Promised Messiah:
the repeated injunction “Obey Allah and the Messenger”,
“believe in Allah and His Messenger” (4:136, 7:158),
“O mankind, the Messenger has indeed come to you with truth from your Lord” (4:170),
“when they are invited to Allah and His Messenger” (24:51),
“Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Latter day,” (33:21)
What about the verse beginning “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” (48:29)? At the start of Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes that this was revealed to him and says: “In this revelation I have been given the name ‘Muhammad’ as well as ‘Messenger'”. So does it mean that wherever we read “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”, (e.g. the Kalima Shahadat) it now refers to HMGA?
From Hassan:
Dear Zahid,
I will not debate the status of MGA with you
but please open your eyes and ask your own heart.
your article which I quoted are very very clearly mentioned the status of MGA.
and No need the explanation.
That the fact !
wassalam,
From Farhan:
as-salaam ‘alaykum,
I am a traditional Muslim from the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’a. (People of the Sunnah and the Main group)
I read this discussion and it seems to be a dispute between the Lahoris and the Qadianis (I never use this term, because they find it offensive. I only use it to distinguish between the two) about what MGA really meant when he claimed to be a Prophet. Did he mean Prophet in the actual sense or metaphorical sense?
Islam is for the layman and the intellectual. Why then would Allah inspire a person with a message that is confusing, even to its followers? The message should be clear and clean, not confusing.
But look at this discussion. People are debating what he really meant, what he said originally, what he said later, ad nauseum. Doesn’t this show that he is not really from Allah?
From Zahid Aziz:
Farhan’s point has weight and value. We should all ponder on it.
But note also that discussions about general Islamic issues have been taking place between Muslims for 14 centuries, many of which are no less confusing. One was, is the Quran created or has it existed since eternity? What an abstruse, impractical debate, but people were put to death over it centuries ago. Then there are the Deobandi vs. Barelvi controversies about whether the Holy Prophet was “nur” or “bashar”, or whether one should say “Ya rasul-ullah” or if this is “shirk” and one only ought to say “rasul-ullah”.There have been riots in Pakistan over this.
Then there is the case of the prophets before the Holy Prophet Muhammad and their followers. They were from Allah. Yet the followers of Jesus, for example, almost from the beginning debated his status, as to how much he claimed to be God and how much he was mortal.
I would say to Farhan that our discussions show the great extent to which the followers of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are digressing from the real message and mission of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I am truly sorry that our behaviour makes people think that he was not from Allah.
From Bashir:
Abdul Momin:
This is the Maudoodi book in english:
http://alhafeez.org/rashid/maududi2.html
I think its an abridged version. I didnt find the statement that you referred to.
From Tariq:
To Hassan.
I am glad that you (and hopefully others from your jama’at) are now being exposed to and perhaps starting to read our literature.
May Allah open everyone’s heart, ours as well as yours, to the truth.
Tariq
From Abdul Momin:
Bashir, in my post dated December 17, 2007 (link here) you will find my reference to Maudoodi’s statement in the Court of Inquiry:
In front of the same court, this book, as well as Aina-Sadaqat written by Khalifa II, was quoted by Maulana Maudoodi during his testimony, to point out the duplicity of the Qadiani jamaat leaders. Maulana Maudoodi (who at one time during the 1930’s had declared the Lahori Ahmadis Muslims in contrast to the Qadianis), was no friend of the Lahori Ahmadis. But in his testimony he said ” Who doesn’t know that the issue over which the Qadianis have differed with the Lahori Ahmadis over the past 35 years has been the point that the Qadianis consider all Muslims who deny the prophethood of Mirza Saheb as non-Muslims and the Lahoris consider this belief to be wrong. If in this debate, “kafir” and “expulsion from the fold of Islam” did not carry the same meanings as are generally understood by Muslims then what was the point of dispute between the two parties”? (Qadiani Masala by Maulana Maudoodi)
This comment by Maudoodi is on page 62 of the book Qadiani Masala (Acrobat Reader page 67) But this whole book is in Urdu. You can download it from :
http://www.khatm-e-nubuwwat.org/bookpdf/book.htm
But you will have to find someone who can read Urdu, and then translate it for you.
From Zahid Aziz:
Perhaps our friend Hassan can clarify, but I am not sure from his posts that he is actually a member of the Qadiani Jamaat, especially as he writes “MGA”. There are many anti-Ahmadiyya people who want to prove that the Qadiani interpretation of Hazrat Mirza sahib’s claims is justified.
From Usman Malik:
In response to Farhan, it would be pertinent to keep in mind that Allah inspired the Holy Prophet (pbuh) with a message (i.e. the Quran) that is accepted as the unadulterated word of Allah by Muslims, yet there are varying interpretations of it; implying there is some “confusion” concerning the teachings of the Quran among its followers. Even the Holy Book itself points out the ambiguity of some of its verses. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that confusion regarding religious matters is not per se a criterion for concluding that the religious thought in question cannot from God. However, I do concede the point that in case of HMGA the confusion is of a rather fundamental nature. Even so, in terms of HMGA being “confusing” regarding his status (pre and post 1900), it would be better for the seeker of truth to actually read for him/her self the writings of HMGA on this issue and judge how confusing they are (or should be) to a reasonable person of rational thought.
From Farhan:
Usman Malik,
Right, but even within the various interpretations, there is one main understanding of its general principles and beliefs (most Muslims are “Sunni” and share the same beliefs), whereas the followers of MGA disagree on even his most fundamental of his beliefs.
In fact, according to the Lahori group, the main followers of MGA are upon falsehood! So, if Ahmadiyya is true, Allah buried it under orthodox Islam and then under false Ahmadiyya. Makes the Truth a bit hard to come by, doesn’t it?
I believe Allah has made the Truth of Islam clear.
From Zahid Aziz:
Dear Farhan,
What you call the “one main understanding of its general principles” is also shared by Lahori Ahmadis and even Qadianis. Try naming anything actually shared by all Sunnis, and it is most likely to be believed by Lahore Ahmadis and Qadianis.
You should be proud that Islam is such a religion that all Muslims, including Ahmadis, agree on so many basics, a commonality not found in non-Islamic religions.
As to differences between Ahmadis, you may know that the Sunni sects, who you say agree on general principles, call each other kafir. They don’t pray behind each other’s imams.
The Taliban in North West Pakistan are certainly not in agreement about the nature of Islamic society and about what is jihad with other Sunni Muslims of the same country. Killings are daily taking place on that basis.
Islam teaches that the followers of Jesus went astray very shortly after his time. Yet Islam also says that Jesus was a true prophet. It requires Muslims to believe both things: (1) that he was true and (2) that his followers developed wrong beliefs about his status shortly after him!
From Abdul Momin:
There is a very well researched but lengthy article on the state of relations between the components of the Ahle-Sunnat-wal-Jamaat. I think everyone will benefit from reading it. It deals with inter Sunni relations during the past twenty years or so. The link is :
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=12597