“Two phases” of Promised Messiah
Our contributor Bashir has submitted the following as a new topic.
I have written all along that HMGA had 2 phases of his career. These two phases are very hard to contrast. The first phase would be 1891 to 1900. The second phase is from 1901 to 1908. The first phase was that of obscurity, while the second phase was that of success.
I had written in my personal research journals to the effect that in 1900/01 HMGA achieved success, this success changed his writing style. In other words after NOV 1901, HMGA held no punches. He didn’t shy away from the titles that were conferred to him. I researched for hours and hours and I concluded that HMGA must have changed his demeanor as well as writing style in 1901. But I could never understand the reason for this change.
We all know that HMBMA (1915 Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwat) wrote that HMGA had a “tabdili aqidah” (change in beliefs). We all also understand the position of the aaiil. With these two positions, I assembled the facts that related to the case. My conclusions were always that this was a successful time for HMGA.
Last month or so the AMI (Qadiani Jamaat) posted a small booklet online. The first English translation of this article was published under the title How to get rid of the Bondage of Sin, in the English edition of The Review of Religions, January 1902. HMGA must have written this directly after writing EGKI. M. Ali must have translated this into English. In this book HMGA did not include himself with the prophets. He mentions prophets as Adam to Muhammad(pg. 3). Not Adam to HMGA.
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/How-to-be-Free-from-Sin-20080806MN.pdf
Here is what I found:
Pg. 8
The Promised Messiah is to appear in two phases. The
first will be unremarkable, accompanied by all kinds of
tribulations. This will be followed by a period of glory,
before which a minaret must be built to comply with the
Tradition which says that the physical minaret will be a
reflection of the spiritual one.
HMGA also wrote:
Pg. 3
In short, a fierce clash between the darkness of the earth
and the light of heaven is imminent, as foretold by all the
Prophets, from Adam to the Holy Prophet.
From Zahid Aziz:
Hazrat Mirza sahib did not consider that the “period of glory” had come during his life. What he wrote elsewhere, and later on, proves this.
In Tazkirat-tush-shahadatain (1903) he has made the famous prophecy that three generations (including his own) will pass away and not see the return of Jesus, and then “the third century from today will not have finished” when Muslims and Christians awaiting the return of Jesus will despair and give up this belief. He then adds:
“I have come to sow a seed. That seed has been sown by my hand. Now it will grow and expand, and no one can stop its growth.” (Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 20, p. 67)
In his Will (December 1905) he writes:
“You are the seed which the Hand of God has sown in the earth. God says that this seed will grow and flower and its branches will spread in all directions and it will become a huge tree. So, blessed is one who believes in what God says and does not fear the trials which he suffers in His path. For, the coming of trials is essential so that God may try you to see who is true in his declaration of Bai‘at and who is false.” (Qadiani Jamaat translation at http://www.alislam.org, pages 11-12)
So what Hazrat Mirza sahib thought of himself as doing was to sow a seed, and he prophesied its growth and triumph to come later. The extract from the Will shows that his followers will suffer many trials before or during its growth. The words in the translation above, “and does not fear the trials which he suffers in His path”, are not quite accurate to the original. What he writes is: “…the trials which come in the intervening period” (darmiyan main aanay walay ibtila).
Secondly, Bashir’s conclusion that “In other words after NOV 1901, HMGA held no punches. He didn’t shy away from the titles that were conferred to him ” is also not correct.
As early as February 1892 he issued that famous declaration in which he writes that: “So I wish to make it clear to all Muslim brothers that, if they are displeased with these words and if these words give injury to their feelings, they may regard all such words as amended, and instead consider me to have used the word muhaddas. ”
Why did he declare this if he wasn’t using the word nabi and rasul sufficiently even in 1891 to cause other Muslims to be perturbed?
Then in 1897 he wrote:
“However, by virtue of being appointed by God, I cannot conceal those revelations I have received from Him in which the words nubuwwat and risalat occur quite frequently. But I say repeatedly that, in these revelations, the word mursal or rasul or nabi which has occurred about me is not used in its real sense.” (Anjam Atham)
This shows he was even in the 1890s not concealing, i.e. openly mentioning, his revelations containing these words.
From Rashid:
Problems faced by Qadianis.
Qadianis, unfortunately, believe their Qadiani Khalifas and other elders are honest in their translations of PM-HMGA sahib’s writings. As many in new generation of Qadianis, mostly those who live outside Pakistan cannot read Urdu and have to rely on translations published by Qadiani Jamaat.
I remember in my discussion with a young Qadiani who was insisting that PM-HMGA changed his claim in 1901 and made it clear in his book ‘Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala’ (Correction of an Error). I gave him following quote from the same book, which is in the last paragraph:
“Hence the person who maliciously accuses me of claiming prophethood and messengership is a liar and evil-minded.”
Then I asked that young Qadiani, tell me like opponents of PM-HMGA, in his words why are you not a LIAR and EVIL-MINDED?
The young Qadiani was perplexed and stopped defending the Qadiani jamaat stand.
From Bashir:
My jamaat has 5 books that are in urdu, these I cant read.
1. Qaul al fasl (Jan 1915)
2. Haqiqat tun Nubuwwat April (1915)
3. Anwar-i-khilafat (1916)
4. Kalimat tul fasl (1915)
5. Kashf Ikhtlaf (1920)
A researcher cannot accuratley study the split without these books.
The aaiil has 2 that I need, both by KK…….
Research on the split is incomplete without these 7 books.
From Bashir:
I cant say that I agree with ZA on this one. M. ali or KK never commented on this second phase. In fact. I have never even seen a general comment in terms of this topic. No ahmadi writer has ever even written a research article on the said topic. Me being the first, maybe I have erred in my interpretation, I highly doubt that.
I always think in terms of HMGA’s statements, then M. alis statements, then HMBMA statements……
I think HMGA was speaking of his era(1901). I mean, he writes later in Lecture Ludhiana(1905) that he is averaging almost 3.000 conversions per month. In LL HMGA claims to have a following of 300k. LL page 13:
But, through God’s grace, I
emerged out of it safe and sound and triumphant. He has
brought me back to this city when more than 300,000 men
and women have sworn allegiance
to me. Not a month goes
by without another 2,000 to 4,000 or sometimes 5,000
people joining the Jama‘at.
God sustained me at a time when my own people had
risen against me.
In 6 years(1900/1/2/3/4/5) we have 72 months. 72×3000=216k ahmadis, very rough estimate. As compared to 84k from 1889 to 1899. If we do the math, from 1889 to 1899 is 10 years. 84k in 120 months, thats 700 per month.
The math shows that HMGA had reached a succesful period. When the HP died he had only 200k people with him as muslims. Is it safe to say that HMGA was even more succesful than the HP.
In terms of prophets, was there any other prophet who had more followers than HMGA????????
From Zahid Aziz:
Regarding the questions “Is it safe to say that HMGA was even more successful than the HP.
In terms of prophets, was there any other prophet who had more followers than HMGA?”
This is what happens when a zill and burooz is turned into a real prophet. Hazrat Mirza sahib would be incensed to hear of such comparisons being made, which he would regard as insolent. If I may say so, are Qadianis surprised at being called kafir by other Muslims when they conceive of the possible validity of such comparisons?
A person has to be a follower of the Holy Prophet Muhammad in the first place before he can be a follower of Hazrat Mirza sahib. As he wrote:
“No one enters our Jama‘at except one who has entered the religion of Islam. He should follow the Book of Allah and the Sunna of our Leader, the best of mankind. …” (Mawahib-ur-Rahman, published 1903, Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 19, p. 315)
He always wrote that any achievement by him is derived from the Holy Prophet and should be attributed to the Holy Prophet.
“Since the purpose is only to testify to the truth of the true religion by means of signs, the signs sent by God, whether through a nabi or through a wali, are of the same rank because the Sender is the same. It is utter ignorance and folly to think that if God sends some Divine assistance at the hands of and through a nabi, then it is greater in power and grandeur, but if it is sent through a wali it is less in power and grandeur. … It is admitted that the miracle of a wali is the miracle of the prophet whom he follows, so when this is the case then it is not the work of the honest to draw a distinction between the miracles.” (Ayyam-us-Sulh, p. 74; RK, vol. 14, p. 309)
The fact is that the prophethood of our Holy Prophet Muhammad itself, and grace (faiz) from him, by producing a man who is its manifestation, testifies to its own truth. The wali attains these names for free. In reality, the wali who testifies [to the truth of the Holy Prophet] receives adornment from the Holy Prophet, and it is not the Holy Prophet who becomes adorned because of the wali.” (Ayyam-us-Sulh, p. 74–75; RK, vol. 14, p. 309–310)
It is the wali who needs the Holy Prophet, and not the Holy Propghet who needs the wali.
From Bashir:
ZA:
For this exploration to be complete, we need ROR 1902. The aaiil must have it. The aaiil have 1903, where is 1902???
Griswold based 90% of his research on ROR 1902.
Did m. ali ever comment on this utterance of HMGA. I dont think so. Check the record. KK didnt either. We need ROR 1902 to confirm this idea of mine. Griswold quotes from a statement of HMGA of 1902 in which HMGA plainly states that he is in fact Ismuhu Ahmad.
In fact it seems that you are the pioneer of this explanation. I dont think any ahmadi(q or l) has ever commented on this second phase.
ZA: I am proving a point by writing all of this. That point is that HMGA claimed many things. But he only meant it in a figurative sense.
After 1901 HMGA went totally figurative. He went totally metaphoric. He did this without explaining as to why. Of course in the appendix of HW(1907) he explains it.
These are the facts that I bring to the table. M. ali never wrote about this. M. ali never wrote that the writing style of HMGA changed in 1901. In fact I am the only writer ahmadi or non-ahmadi who has ever pointed this out. This is new research of a dead topic. These are new ideas infused into a puzzle.
I think its a breakthrough.
ZA: I love your feedback, but you appear to be the second ahmadi(q or l) to ever comment on this second phase. Me, being the first.
From Zahid Aziz:
I have the Review of Religions for 1902 but the Urdu version. The Urdu version largely corresponded to the English version.
In the July 1902 issue there is a lengthy article (p. 275 – 292) entitled Farqleet. It tries to prove the standard Muslim belief that Jesus prophesied about the Holy Prophet Muhammad in his prophecy of the coming of a “comforter”, the Greek for which is Paraclete (Arabic: Farqleet). Muslims have always claimed that this is Jesus’ prophecy about ismu-hu Ahmad.
There is a report about this article in Badr, 21 November 1902 (Malfuzat, vol. 4, pages 197-198). It is headed: Farqleet and Ahmad, and runs as follows:
Hazrat Mirza sahib replied:
In the original article of July 1902 it is stated:
So this is the claim, the claim always made by Muslims, which this article of ROR is trying to prove!
So the claim made in the Review of Religions, July 1902, is that the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Prophet that Jesus prophesied about, and that the Promised Messiah is the slave of that Ahmad!
A further, absolute proof that Hazrat Mirza sahib did not claim to be the Ahmad of the ismu-hu Ahmad prophecy is that the Qadiani Jamaat itself has given up this claim! I have written a detailed article of this available at this link.
I obviously can’t repeat that article here, but refer to the following point I presented in it:
In the 5-volumed English translation of the Quran with commentary by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad the commentary on the verse about the Ahmad prophecy consists of a total of 129 lines of print, out of which 122 lines are devoted to showing that the Ahmad of this prophecy is the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Having exhaustively argued that the Holy Prophet Muhammad fulfilled this prophecy, he writes in this footnote:
“Thus the prophecy mentioned in the verse under comment applies to the Holy Prophet, but as a corollary it may also apply to the Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement…”
The same is the situation in their 1-volume English Translation of the Quran with Short Commentary. 90% of the content of the footnote establishes that this prophecy applies to the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
So, how could Hazrat Mirza sahib have claimed to be the fulfiller of ismu-hu Ahmad, when even Mirza Mahmud Ahmad retreated from making this claim about him?
From Bashir:
Once again ZA has shown the magnitude of his scholarship. With your help I was able to understand about extremisms in the AMI.
Griswold writes on page 8:
“This is the Koranic version of christ’s prediction……………………………………………
…………………….. The mirza sahib refers this prophecy to himself, became he professes to have come in the “spirit and power” of Muhamad (ROR AUg 1902 pp. 331-332) and because he bears the name of Ahmad. (Vid. Izala Auham p. 673)
I will scan this entire book, for all enthusiasts.
From Bashir:
M. ali never commented on this second phase. Can I factoid that?
Is there any AAIIL scholar who has ever commented on this second phase? I dont think so. Is there any book that investigates this second phase?
The answers to all these questions is NO.
The truth is HMGA became bold after 1901, his attitude changed, he held no punches. He wasnt shying away from his ranks.
Does that mean that he claimed to be an actual/perfect prophet. I can’t say that it does. I just dont see it. There is no proof of a change. But there is conclusive evidence showing that he maintained his previous position.
After 1901 HMGA was outspoken. He was brash, he was presumptuously forward, he was lacking the level of sensitivity/tact that he previously clinged to.
This was a refreshed HMGA, this was a new HMGA. This was the second phase.
From Zahid Aziz:
You can obviously write whatever your views are. Maulana Muhammad Ali in his article in the June 1906 Review of Religions on the life of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad refers to two phases: one before 1891 when he was widely accepted and hailed by Muslims generally as Mujaddid, and one after 1891 when he was denounced.
“But the year 1891 was a time of great transition in his life, and it divides his life into two parts…” (p. 235)
“The announcement of the claim to Promised Messiahship took place in 1891. Since then the life of the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement has been one of strong opposition on all sides.” (p. 239).
“Since then” means from 1891 to the time of this writing in 1906.
“Notwithstanding the change from time to time of the attitude of the public towards the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a reader of his writings cannot discover the least difference between the Ahmad of today and the Ahmad of the time of the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya. In letters and articles of still earlier dates the same personality is clearly witnessed. The one theme of all his writings is the superiority of Islam over all other religions because of the continuity of the gift of revelation in this religion. It is on this that laid stress thirty years ago, and it is on this that he lays stress today. In like manner, he has not from the time that he began to receive revelation entertained the slightest doubt as to the Divine origin and truth of the words he has been receiving. He was as sure of the truth of the words “Is not God sufficient for His servant” revealed to him at his father’s death thirty years ago, as he is of any words which he receives now.” (p. 253-254)
(And now I must go and reply to two e-mails from another Qadiani Jamaat member!)
From Bashir:
ZA: thanks for finding that statement by M. ali. I didn’t know of that. Thanks for rising to the occassion and answering my tough questions.
It looks like I may be wrong on this one. Thanks for the insight.
When will ROR be available online???? I want to archive all of them.
From Abdul Momin:
While it is understandable that HMGA’s followers would like to understand him and his personality and his claims (especially in the light of the Split), it must be pointed out that human beings are very complex beings. It is impossible for one human being to go into the mind of another human being (and that too a dead one from another era) and state with absolute certainly why one would follow a certain course of action. There was another change in his writing style even before 1901. I don’t remember which term it was but he stopped using it after his initial books (I think the term related to imperfect prophethood or partial prophethood).
If this motive – being flushed with success at conversion of people to Ahmadiyyat resulted in HMGA changing his writing style – is attributed to him, this opens up HMGA to the charge of being an opportunist. I have read an extract from one writer who claims “……..Some of his articles on Islam are outstanding. I can say if Mirza Saheb, having been carried away by his success, had not claimed prophethood we would have considered Mirza Saheb as the best servant of Muslims of the present era. But unfortunately what started so well, did not end so well.” [Tehreek Qadiyan (or Qadiani Movement) by Syed Habib – From Shahadat Haqqa (in Urdu) P33, on the AAIIL website]
From aaiildotorg:
The RoR archive, and for that matter the archive of all our magazines has been mostly scanned or identified (collected). We are going through quality control (cleaning pages, rescanning dim pages from alternative sources, etc., etc.).
The archives will allow for the Qadiani Jamaat members to study from the source and visualise things as they happened and materialised. They can then make up their own minds whether anything happened in 1901! And, if the 1914 events (from the Lahori perspective) were true to the spirit of the preservation of the true teachings of HMGAQ.
HMGAQ’s original books and our remaining books by other authors are also undergoing quality control issues.
Most of the audio work is ready for uploading, but we have to get a significant audio cassette archive in mp3 format, still.
Video work is also underway, with footage from the past will bring back fond memories of our buzurgs.
We have also made arrangements for our visitors to be able to copy/paste material from any of our books. This will take some time to bring online. For now, you can search a book in google (or our search facility), and then click on ‘view as html’ for the pdf books and copy/paste that way.
Webmaster,
aaiil.org
From Zahid Aziz:
The change that Syed Habib is referring to in the words “if Mirza Saheb, having been carried away by his success, had not claimed prophethood” is considered by him to have taken place in 1891 when Hazrat Mirza sahib claimed to be Promised Messiah.
From Bashir:
Thanks for all the insight. I wish the AMI had a forum where I could post my thoughts. The aaiil has allowed me a medium to discuss my ideas, some of which are wrong and some of which are just me brainstorming out-loud.
As a researcher I must admit that after 1901 HMGA used the word nabi haphazardly, he used it with wreckless abandon.
M. ali described how this word was being used in ROR 1904. M. ali wrote that it was permissable to call a muhadas as a nabi. M. ali wrote that it was Ok to do so. M. ali even said the same in a court case from 1904. HMGA was in the courthouse when M. ali made these statements on oath.
In my research, after HMBMA was elected ad Khalifa, the AMI began to say that HMGA was Ismuhu Ahmad. They substantiated this claim by also inferring that he was a mustaqil prophet.
KK writes in his book(late 1914), that people were standing in mosques, with the Koran in their right hand, claiming that HMGA was a mustaqil nabi. KK also wrote that maybe HMBMA would himself claim prophethood.
Once again I urge the aaiil to translate the book of KK, I am even willing to donate funds to help this happen. This book is crucial. This is the first book on the subject.
I also urge the AMI to translate HN, qaul al fasl, anwar i khilafat, kalimatul fasl, and Kashf Iktalaf.
If I could read urdu, I would have already done so.
From Tariq:
Whose KK and what book are you talking about?
From Bashir:
LEGEND
KK=Kwaja Kamaluddin
KK wrote two books about the split. One of which was the first ever written material in terms of the split. The other is related to the controversy surrounding the english transalation of the Koran that M. ali did. HMBMA claimed that this belonged to the anjuman. M. ali said that it was his. HMBMA claimed that M. ali earned a salary from the AMI while doing this work, this was true.
Here are the links:
1. Ahmadiyya Jamaat Mein Moqudamaat
http://www.aaiil.org/urdu/books/others/khwajakamaldin/ahmadiyyajamaatmeinmoqudamaat/ahmadiyyajamaatmeinmoqudamaat.shtml
2. Ikhtalayfaat-e-Silsilaa-e-Ahmadiyya kay Usbaab
http://www.aaiil.org/urdu/books/others/khwajakamaldin/ikhtaylaafsilsilaa/ikhtaylaafsilsilaa.shtml
From Rashid:
English Translation of Holy Quran by Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ali (HMMA) sahib.
Bashir you wrote: “M. ali said that it was his. “.
Actually when HMMA sahib immigrated from Qadian to Lahore, the only person who accompanied him was my Nana (maternal grandfather). HMMA sahib did NOT even bring manuscript of Holy Quran translation with him. He left it in Qadian. When he reached Lahore, an elder of AAIIL (I think it was Dr. Muhammad Hussain sahib) inquired about translation. HMMA sahib replied he left it in Qadian. On insistence of this elder of AAIIL, his servant was given direction of where manuscript was placed (I think it was in Ch. Zafarullah Khan house, which was on outskirts of Qadian).
HMMA sahib made 2 offers to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.
First, he offered to publish it together and each to pay for half of copies. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (Qadiani Khalifa 2) did NOT agree.
Second: HMMA was willing to give the whole manuscript on the condition that Qadiani Khalifa 2 will NOT make any changes. Qadiani khalifa 2 disagreed.
Interestingly, Qadiani Khalifa 2 realized if translation gets published and spreads in his Qadiani Jamaat, stature of HMMA sahib will further rise. This was NOT acceptable to QK 2. So, he stopped demanding it. I believe Allah wanted to save this monumental work. Had it reached into hands of QK2, he would have definitely destroyed it.
It is also WRONG when Qadianis accuse HMMA sahib of “stealing” Holy Quran.
From Yahya:
With regards to the two periods in Hazrat Mirza Sahib’s mission, I remember reading in the Khutbat Maulana Muhammad Ali the following distinguishing features:
The writings of Mirza Sahib, before his claim to be the promised Messiah, were focused on the defense of Islam and on refuting the criticisms against Islam.
But after this period, Hazrat Mirza Sahib’s writings had a different flavor – on expounding the beauty and glory of Islam and on propagating and spreading Islam.
I cannot recall the volume / Khutba in which the Maulana made this distincton. It is of course post 1914.
From Zahid Aziz:
Further to Rashid’s post, the offer to jointly publish the translation, put by Maulana Muhammad Ali to the Qadiani Jamaat, was one only, with both the conditions applying that Rashid mentions. These were not separate alternatives. See http://www.ahmadiyya.org/books/m-kabir/mjk3-2.htm under the sub-heading: English translation of the Quran and the Qadian community
As to the manuscript reaching Lahore from Qadian, this is mentioned briefly in Yaad-i Raftigaan in the life of Dr Syed Muhammad Husain Shah written by his son, the well-known late Dr. Col. Bashir Husain Syed (pages 105-106). I have made the passage available here.
From Bashir:
For Rashid:
Thanks for the clarification. How is it possible that HMBMA allowed this translation to leave on qadian???
That doesnt seem plausable. It just doesnt make sense. There has to be chunk of the story missing. In AS HMBMA claimed that M. ali took a type-writer and 10,000( i cant remember the exact amount) rupees in books. HMBMA didnt mention the english translation of the Koran whatsoever.
I, or any other researcher cannot fully explore this aspect of AMI vs. aaiil without KK’s book. My wife read me about half of it… but I could not retain the data. I need these books by KK.
For yayha:
I think that the success of 1900/01 changed the demeanor of HMGA. An example is the HP, before and after Hijra. The muslims were empowered by their success.
For ZA:
So, who was the guy that retrieved m. ali’s work?? WHo was the person that actually went to qadian and got this Koran??? Is there an exact date???
Like I said, there appears to be a major portion of this story missing.
To add to the confusion, HMBMA delayed Sher Ali in this work as well. Sher ali started in 1915, then he finished in the 1950’s.
The AMI in 1914 had very few people who could be considered GREAT. Here are my standards of greatness:
1. To be able to read and write in urdu, english and arabic.
2. Great speaking ability.
3. Leadership ability.
M. ali and KK were top of the class. HMBMA didnt know english. Noorudin and HMGA were also deficient in english. Mufti Muhammad Sadiq and Sher Ali were well behind KK and M. ali. Mirza bashir Ahmad had these credentials, but he didnt write books in engish, check his writings.
Of all the Khalifas of my jamaat only Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad had these ablilities. I consider him the greatest ahmadi(q) khalifa. I ponder on the possibility of these 3 men.
Just imagine if KK, m. ali and HMBMA stayed together. The AMI might gave conquered the world. But now that conquest has been delayed.
From Bashir:
I just realized something, KK was trying to come back to India. Noorudin had even approved his return. Sher Ali was to relieve KK in england. Sher Ali was to be the Imam of the Woking Mosque. Instead, HMBMA bulit his own mosque ten years later, KK’s assistant left the woking mosque. How did HMBMA know that KK was against him? The AMi bulit a mosque in England, which stood as the only AMI mosque in all of Europe until at least 1961. see Mirza Mubarak Ahmad’s book: “Our Foreign Missions”.
When did the anjuman and Noorudin make this decision? Was it dec 1913?? This opens a pandoras box.
By squashing the decision to send Sher Ali to england, this delayed KK’s return to India. This could have been a political move. If KK was in qadian for the death of noorudin, that would have changed the history of the split.
From Bashir:
Does anybody have the minutes of the meetings of the Sadr Anjuman?? I would love to read the minutes of all the meetings from 1906 to 1915. There must be a great deal of data there.
From Usman:
“Just imagine if KK, m. ali and HMBMA stayed together. The AMI might gave conquered the world. But now that conquest has been delayed. ”
The truth is going to prevail one way or the other. I also feel, and have said this earlier, that the split and elavation of HMGA’s rank to an unjustified station by the larger group just completes the likeness of HMGA to Hazrat Isa.
From Rashid:
Maulvi Sher Ali sahib spent a few years with Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ali (RTA) in Lahore after the split in 1914. This he did to receive knowledge from HMMA sahib for his English translation of Holy Quran. This information was given to me by son in-law of Maulvi Sher ali sahib i.e. Hazrat Maulana Abdul Mannan Omar sahib.
Qadianis have published a 5 volumed English Translation of Holy Quran that they claim is by their Khalifa 2. Whereas the fact is that the translation is 100% of Maulvi Sher Ali. And according to the preface/acknowledgement, Khalifa 2 writes that he never read the translation and tafseer (commentary) that is published as his work!
Malik Ghulam Farid sahib, translator of Holy Quran, never considered Khalifa 2 to be Musleh Mauood.
From Bashir:
For Usman:
Yes, this does complete the likeness. M. ali wrote the same in “prophethood in Islam”.
For Rashid:
I HAVE NEVER READ ANYWHERE THAT SHER ALI SPENT TIME WITH M. ALI AFTER THE SPLIT. Can ZA confirm. This isnt written anywhere!!!! Did Abdul Mannan write this anywhere??? Why didnt m. ali write about this??? Why would m. ali help the AMI??
Interesting things you write, email me, so that I can ask you more in-depth questions. xobashir@hotmail.com
From Bashir:
HMBMA only translated Chapter 1 and 2, Chapters 10 to 29, and chapters 78 to 114.
He didnt translate Chp. 61, that is where the Ismuhu Ahmad situation appears. That commentary does not belong to HMBMA.
How can the aaiil cite that as against him!!!!!!!!
From Zahid Aziz:
Bashir, please read that paragraph in full, i.e. the second paragraph in the Publisher’s Note to the 5-volumed English commentary of the Quran. The link is below:
http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=-306®ion=E1
It says that the remaining commentary is based on “extensive notes” prepared by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.
In any case, as it is published by the Qadiani Jamaat with the name of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad on it as author, how can it be claimed that some parts of it do not reflect his beliefs?
From Bashir:
ZA, I suspect that HMBMA held the belief that HMGA was in fact Ismuhu Ahmad, but, it appears that somebody else changed this.
WHAT NOTES?????? After AS(1922), HMBMA never again spoke on the topic of Ismuhu Ahmad…..in his life…check the record.
I have never seen any statement. This is an amazing discovery. The fact is that some ahmadis changed this belief. WHY. I don’t know. This must be further investigated!!!!