Some charges against Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
I have decided to convert a comment that was submitted under another topic into a new post, so that the discussion is clearer to follow. The comment sent by a Mr Ali is quoted below.
OK, something I find very difficult to understand about ahmadis (both groups) is that they are claim that they are the ‘true muslims’ who are defending Islam against the onslaught from Christian missionaries. (The AMI ofcourse are forever flip flopping on the status of ghair Ahmadis depending on who is asking the question. Sometimes, when confronted with the fact that their MGA is a prophet, they will tell the truth and say that Ghair Ahmadis are non-muslims because they deny a prophet , other times they will claim that ghair ahamdis are kafir within the four walls of Islam, whatever that means)
Another claim they make is that the Dajjal is the western civillisation. Yet according to the Lahoris the messiah of Islam, and according to the Qadianis, a PROPHET of Allah offered his allegiance to the the then Queen of England, a country that was at the fore front of many of these Christian missionary activities that defamed the prophet Muhammad a.s pbuh.
Also even if you argue along the lines that the British were not harming him and were providing safety to Muslims in India from the Sikhs etc, how can you justify a PROPHET raising money for the British army to fight the Boer war in South Africa? That is in my opinion aiding the Dajjal.
Before we go of at tangents by the Lahoris pointing out that main stream muslims benefitted from British largesse in the shape of Regents Park mosque, it could be pointed out that the present day Qadiani benefitted by an order of magnitude more if you take into account their numbers.
Tha Qadianis had missions in British controlled Palestine, spreading the word of the new Prophet about a century ago. There is little doubt in my mind that the British goverment at the time had a hand in aiding the movement in a similar way to the Bahai movement.
From Zahid Aziz:
In response to Ali:
1. We Lahoris don’t claim to be “true Muslims”. Only Allah knows who is a “true” Muslim. (Of course, Z.A. Bhutto and Zia-ul-Haq, like most Muslim Ulama, claimed equality with Allah in this respect of knowing who is a true Muslim.)
2. Is it only a claim by us and by Hazrat Mirza sahib of fighting Christian missionaries? Recently, in a Pakistan TV programme Dr Israr Ahmad stated that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was respected by prominent Muslims of the past because of his defence of Islam against Christian attacks.
3. In expressing loyalty to British rule Hazrat Mirza sahib was following the agreed position of Muslim leaders in India, which had been laid out before his time by leaders such as Sir Syed Ahmad Khan.
4. When did he raise money for the British “to fight” the Boer war? And who exactly were the British fighting in the Boer war? Was it some Muslims or some pro-Muslim nation or some progressive and enlightened nation? I once met a white South African on a long flight to South Africa, who complained about the British having fought against his people in the Boer war. I can let you know his “progressive” views about the black population of his country.
5. As to benefitting from British rule, millions of Muslim in the U.K. are doing so right now. Their leaders are queuing up to tell the British government: we are loyal to your Queen and country, we don’t believe in waging jihad against you by war.
When I recently wrote the book “Islam, Peace and Tolerance” and presented it to representatives of the British government, I was told that the government’s advisers think that the general Muslims will not listen to anything Ahmadis say about Islam being peaceful, and therefore the government wants to support and encourage those Muslim groups who are believed by the general Muslim community. So it is the Sunni Muslim groups who are getting government grants for mosques, imam training etc. and British ministers and Members of Parliament are trying to curry favour of these groups.
From Ali:
1. Let us not forget that all of the progeny of MGA and 99% of his followers (who went on to form AMI) also seem to be blessed with the ability of knowing who is a true muslim. So let us be careful before making sweeping statements. If the progeny of your own messiah is in the business of, as you put it “claiming equality with Allah in this respect of knowing who is a true Muslim” then does that not reflect badly on your messiah also?
2. There are equally many famous muslims, Allama Iqbal comes to mind, who were convinced that HMGA was a false prophet. I understand that Iqbal had favourable views of your sect, but from what I understand he held the opinion that HMGA did claim prophethood and the Lahore section of the Ahmadiyya movement were simply fooling themselves when they denied this.
I have no idea who Israr Ahmad is, so cannot judge the validity of your claims.
3. From my reading of history, many of the people who governed the British empire were Protestant Christians who were very active in the dissemination of literature that contained obscenities about the prophet Muhammad as. Is it the job of the Messiah of the muslims (in the case of the Lahore group), or a prophet of Allah in the case of the AMI,
to then support these people? To say that people like sir Syed Ahmad Khan supported the British so it was OK for HMGA to support the empire is an invalid comparison. HMGA claimed to be at the very least the messiah and in the opinion of AMI a PROPHET!! Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was in my opinion what many people today would call a social activist, he wanted to improve the lot of the Muslims in India via education. Obviously having these views helped him in gaining British patronage and that’s fair enough, he did a splendid job and for him the ends justified the means. HOWEVER if you claim prophethood or if you claim to be a messiah you cannot have such ambigous morals. Either he truely believed that the British Empire was rightous and therefore desserved his support, or the alternative is that he was just trying to curry the favour of the ruling elite so that they would aid him.
4. I have not come across any literature about HMGA and the Boer war, what I know is only via third hand sources. However it seems to be mentioned so frequently that it’s impossible to dismiss. Did HMGA write in support of the British Empire in their conflict with the Boers? My understanding from other forums is that he did. I might be false but obviously Ahmadis don’t really talk about it too much so it is impossible to verify one way or the other. Did he even know what the war was about and the awful loss of life and many of the inhumane conditions that normal people suffered or did he just jump on the band wagon because it suited his aims?
It may be the case that my sources are wrong and therefore I am wrong, however I really don’t think this is the case.
Need I point out that the British empire was never held “progressive” views about many of the natives they conquered! (Native Americans come to mind)
5. Yes you are correct. I cannot fault you on your first point.
However on the subject of your book “Islam, Peace and Tolerance” and the British government.
The vast majority of Ahmadis in the UK believe that HMGA was a prophet. They keep up this charade that Sunni, Shias are kaffirs within the four walls of Islam, when even the most illiterate gutter maulvi can tell you what the consequences are of rejecting a prophet of Allah. They use the same Kalima as main stream muslims yet they then argue that a new prophet has come in whose belief it is mandatory in order for you to remain a muslim.
Bearing the above in mind, asking general Muslims to heed the advice of Ahmadis is akin to asking Baptisits in Texas to take the advice of Joseph Bigham Young or the ayatollas to consult the Bahais for advice. In short I reckon it would not be very effective, even if what you say is correct and would be of great benefit to them.
However the argument made against Ahmadis, as you well know is that the British supported false prophets in order to misguide ordinary general muslims by corrupting their beliefs.
From Zahid Aziz:
In response to Mr Ali, the wrong beliefs of the Qadiani Jamaat that you refer to (e.g. considering themselves as the only true Muslims) have been refuted by us at considerable length and this is widely known to people. But as you are not one of their members, there is no point in me arguing against their beliefs in my response to you.
As to their beliefs reflecting badly on the Messiah, consider whether Islam says anywhere that the wrong beliefs of Christians reflect badly on Jesus. Moreover, opponents of Islam put forward this same argument against the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the Quran. They say: Don’t the beliefs and deeds of those who claim to be the most staunch Muslims today reflect the real teachings of Islam?
2. As to Iqbal, the Qadiani Jamaat had been in existence since 1914 proclaiming that Hazrat Mirza sahib was a prophet but Iqbal continued regarding them as Muslims and collaborating with them openly and publicly until 1932 when he fell out with them over the Kashmir issue. It was actually Iqbal who in a public lecture in 1910 (after the death of Hazrat Mirza sahib) in a Muslim university stated:
“In the Punjab a true model of Islamic life has arisen in the form of that community which is known as the Qadiani sect.”
That’s almost like “true Muslim”!
Dr Israr Ahmad is one of the most famous Sunni Ulama of Pakistan and has been for the past 30 years.
3. No one did more than than Hazrat Mirza sahib to counter the attacks of Christians against the Holy Prophet and Islam. You can read his defence of Islam in all his books. You may like to ponder the point, how it is that your sources have informed you about his statements of loyalty to British rule but kept you entirely in the dark about his lengthy arguments against Christianity? Why don’t they tell you that he wrote in his books, addressing the British rulers, that your god is dead, that you are clever enough to rule the world but hold an irrational belief that Jesus is the son of God?
As an example I invite you to read his book Kitab-ul-Bariyya. See this link.
Later in the same book he writes in a petition to the British government:
“As our British government treats all its subjects with equality, and its benevolence and mercy are available to every community, it is therefore our right to place before it each and every suffering and pain, and seek from it the remedy of our grievances. These days the most terrible distress that we suffer is that the Christian clergymen want in every way to dishonour our Prophet, on whom be peace and the blessings of Allah, to abuse him, to make false allegations against him, and to revile him in every way so as to torment us; and they want us to remain completely silent in response and not to have the right even to reply to their attacks. Consequently, they misrepresent any statement of ours, no matter how mild it may be, as if it were scurrilous, and complain to the authorities, despite the fact that their own language is a thousand times more abusive.”
Read this petition at this link. He wrote it because Christian missionaries complained to the court that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has insulted Jesus.
Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote specifically that he, like almost all other Muslims of India and especially of Punjab, supported the British government for the reason that Muslims can practise their religion freely, propagate it, and can attack the Christian critics of Islam.
Are you aware of the widespread charge by anti-Ahmadiyya Muslims that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad “insulted” Jesus? How can both allegations be true that (1) he was ingrataitng himself with the British, Christian Protestant government and that (2) he insulted Jesus?
4. Then it seems you are willing to condemn and denounce someone on the basis of what you yourself describe as “third hand” sources who are his avowed opponents. As you say, “this is my understanding from other forums”. Please consider what a non-Muslim’s understanding about the Holy Prophet Muhammad would be from a huge number of anti-Islamic forums.
As an analogy of the Boer war situation, in the second World War the British, who were still ruling India, fought against Nazi Germany. And Muslims in India supported them and a large number fought for them in that war. (Hence the British government giving them the land for the central London Mosque of today.) The question is, who was better, or less bad: Britain or Nazi Germany.
5. You have not at all understood the point I made by referring to my book. It is that the British government today, in order to encourage Muslims to live as loyal, peaceful citizens, says that it will use the preaching of Sunni Muslim Ulama and not of Ahmadis. Why does it say it? Because, as you yourself admit, Ahmadis cannot possibly influence the vast bulk of Muslims because of their antagonism. The same antagonism existed in the time of Hazrat Mirza sahib after his claim to be Messiah. So why should the British support him then?
In your last para you refer to “the argument made against Ahmadis … that the British supported false prophets”. The least amount of commonsense shows that anyone even thought by Muslims to be claiming to be a prophet among them would face ferocious opposition, as actually happened, and anything he told them they would most definitely oppose. In fact, you yourself have admitted it by citing the examples of Bigham Young and the Bahais.
The only way in which the British could use Mirza Ghulam Ahmad would be to get him to tell Muslims something true, useful or sensible. The moment he would say it, Muslims would reject it, and hence suffer as a result.
From Zahid Aziz:
According to Mr Ali, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was only a social activist and educationist. In fact, Sir Syed wrote a voluminous, scholarly book in English entitled Essays on the life of Muhammad which he published from London in 1870 in reply to the charges against the Holy Prophet Muhammad in the book Life of Mahomet by Sir William Muir. It was also published in Urdu as Khutbat-i Ahmadiyya, and is now published under the title Sirat Muhammadi. It is said to be an immense service to Islam. Then in the 1890s he also wrote a commentary on the Holy Quran in Urdu, now available online. He regarded himself as a reformer of Islam, though not as one appointed by Allah. His exhortations to Muslims to show loyalty to British rule were based on his Islamic convictions and were the pronouncements of an acknowledged scholar of Islam.
As to Iqbal, I suggest one should read a letter he wrote to The Times in London in 1931 when he was in London for one of the “round table” conferences on Indian independence, and also his speeches in 1932 at the British Parliament.
See this link.
Quoting from there: “A series of contented and well-organized Moslem provinces on the North-West Frontier of India would be the bulwark of India and of the British Empire against the hungry generations of the Asiatic highlands.”
“Muslims have courage and have always shown loyalty and affection for Great Britain. I hope the Muslims’ legitimate claims and aspirations would be fully safeguarded in the final settlement.”
From Bashir:
Mr. Ali raises some valid points. As far as the BOER war is concerned, I have never heard that HMGA raised money to help the british in this endeavor.
The facts are this, the british made over a billion dollers during their time in INDIA. The british were nice to the country that they occupied, they allowed religous freedom, etc etc etc…
The brits were the quintessentiai definition of DAJJAL. No muslim ever thought that the messiah would defend them. Muslims are of the opinion that when the messiah/mahdi returns he will fight the DAJJAL. He will destroy them.
Muslims believe that the MAhdi/Messiah will raise up a muslim nation that will destroy all the christian nations. I dont fault them for this belief..hadith books concur on this set of beliefs.
Why was HMGA’s attitude nice towards the british…I dont know??? I cant answer that question. All the british did was allow religious freedom. Meanwhile they robbed INDIA of its resources.
Not an even trade-off, if you ask me.
From Zahid Aziz:
What was the attitude of other Indian Muslims leaders towards British rule? They had a far greater following among Muslims than Hazrat Mirza sahib had, and anything they said or did had a much greater effect than anything he could say or do.
The founders of Pakistan, such as Mr Jinnah, are regarded by modern Indians as tools used by the British to divide India. Indians believe Pakistan to be a product of British conspiracy. The All-India Muslim League never opposed British rule in the way that the Congress party under Gandhi and Nehru did. The Muslims were desperately worried about what would happen if the British left the country, giving power to the majority Hindus.
A hundred years from now, Muslims will be asking about you (i.e. about today’s Muslim residents of USA): why were you so nice to the Americans who were bombing your countries and killing your people, paid for by your taxes?
From Zahid Aziz:
Since Islam addresses all nations, and not just Muslims, therefore Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in his mission of Muslim reform also wanted to convey that guidance to all nations, including of course those who were ruling the Muslims. The British, and the West generally, needed rescue just as the Muslims did.
Of course, materialists think that those who have worldly power and wealth have got everything and are not victims of the situation, but are to be envied and copied. And Muslims think that Islam has come just for them, to make them victorious over the rest of the world, about whom Allah has no care or concern.
The approach of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was to use the weapons available under the circumstances. And those weapons were the freedom of the practice and propagation of Islam that Muslims had under British rule. He believed that Muslims could use these means to convince their rulers of the truth of their religion, thus benefitting both themselves and their rulers.
Now I would ask those Muslims who are sceptical about this approach: Are you doubting that Islam can win over hearts by means of Muslims presenting a good example of what is a Muslim and propagating the true teachings of their faith? If this is your opinion about your own religion, then fine!
Those Muslims criticising Hazrat Mirza sahib on these grounds should think clearly about what exactly they wish him to have done? Should he, as a claimant to being Messiah and Mahdi, have raised a Muslim army to expel the British from India? That response had repeatedly proved to be a failure, causing only more and more weakening of the Muslims.
Supposing he won. What should he do next? Fight the majority Hindus to establish Muslim rule in India again? The previous Muslim rule in India was that of the Mughal empire. Is that the “true” Islamic rule which he should revive? Remember how Mughals tortured their own people as well as non-Muslims, so much so as to make the Sikhs into enemies of Muslims, and how brother fought brother for succession after the death of their father the king.
Muslim decline had been going on for centuries, long before they came under European rule. Hazrat Mirza sahib looked at the root causes of their malady and tried ways of treating that. A profound reformer would look at the deeper causes rather than the superficial symptoms.
Here was a man who identified the real causes of Muslim degeneration and prescribed ways by which they could not only pull of of it themselves but also benefit the rest of the world. But Muslims generally rejected his approach and as a result spent another century getting defeated and humiliated, so much so that they gave non-Muslim powers entry into Arabia, something which had never happened ever before.
Hazrat Mirza sahib also recognised, as he says repeatedly, that we live in a changed world since the advent of modern knowledge and technology. Now wars can’t achieve any victory. The only victory to be won now is to convince people of the truth of your cause, by argument and practical example.
From Bashir:
ZA: I agree with everything you wrote.
But, the musims have an impression of the MAHDI/MESSIAH. This impressions includes all of the hindus of INDIA joining Islam, very quickly I may add. This impression is the strengthening of Islam.
People were suupose to just look at the MAHDI and accept him. There is no report in any hadith that the mahdi would be rejected. All hadith reports dwell on victory. Obviously that didnt happen.
Hindus are IDOL worshippers, they are more than 10% of the worlds population. HMGA should have at least converted half of them to Islam. That would have a major feat. But that didnt happen.
The Brits should have been blinded by Islam, that didnt happen.
Show me one hadith in which the mahdi/messiah would be rejected….trust me…it doesnt exist.
Hadith give me the impression that in 40 years, 80% of the worlds population would become muslim. Christianity would vanish. The day of judement would be quickly approaching
Wether the messiah/mahdi was a prophet or not, that was INCONSEQUENTIAL. This is what HMBMA had a problem with, i.e. the deniers of HMGA. Deniers of the mahdi/messiah were never thought of, until it actually became a problem, circa 1911.
From Zahid Aziz:
The “impression” that Muslims have, which you refer to, is their own wishful thinking. The Quran has a word for it, as Maulana Muhammad Ali says in a khutba, which is amaniy (as in 2:111) or idle and vain desires.
Please note that no event prophesied in Islam can take place in contravention of the principles laid down by Islam, which were also seen in practice in the lives of those sent by God. One such principle is that those sent by God are vigorously opposed and widely rejected when they appear, and they have to struggle hard for any acceptance. Truth spreads according to certain laws of God. For people to just look at the Mahdi or Messiah and accept him would be an event entirely against what is called the sunnah of Allah in the Quran.
You are asking for a hadith in which the Mahdi/Messiah would be rejected. Such rejection is proved by the basic principles taught in the Quran and by the whole history of the institution of prophets, saints and mujaddids.
Another principle in the Quran is that “Allah does not change the condition of a people, until they change their own condition” (13:11). It simply cannot happen that Muslims just sit and wait in a state of defeat and decline, and a Messiah or Mahdi comes and leads them to victory without any effort by them to reform themselves and to make sacrifices for the cause. Of course this idea appeals to those who wish to have glory falling into their laps without lifting a finger. The very people who are awaiting such an appearance reject the man of God when he tells them to reform themselves and sacrifice their desires.
When announcing his mission as the Promised Messiah, Hazrat Mirza sahib declared in his booklet Fath-i Islam:
Until Muslims make such sacrifices, no Messiah or Mahdi can bring them victory. Their condition will be like that of the followers of Moses who said to him: “Go therefore, you and your Lord, and fight; surely here we sit” (5:24).
From Usman:
Regarding aiding the Dajjal as demonstrated by the alleged and unproven statement about the Boer war, one thing, generally speaking, needs to be kept in mind. In my understanding the defeat of the Dajjal is the defeat of the materialistic idealogy of the Dajjal and is disconnected (per se) from the Dajjal’s military conquests. In fact recent history shows that materialism has dictated Dajjal’s military and non-military actions, and that even the Muslims have become the Dajjal by making materialism thier God. It is this materialistic ideology that now pervades both the traditional and the Muslim Dajjal nations that the Promised Messiah will defeat via his logical arguments from within the philosophy of Quranic Islam. In this perspective it is not necessary that the Messiah should be automatically opposed to any military action by the Dajjal. Of course that is not to say that it is irrelevant if any man of God supports an unjust action; be it a war or not.
Also it should be noted that the whole criticism of HMGA about being a British agent emanated from his opposition to a violent Jihad against the British rule in the name of Islam. He outlined the concept of Jihad in Islam and actually pointed out that the wrong notion of a bloody holy war for Islamic domination is being spread by Christian missionaries to malign Islam, and that this is being most pervasively done in the NWFP region where the tribal customs and lack of education make the population most prone to such ideas. He recommended that it is necessary to counter this wrong notion, especially in the NWFP, by spreading counter literature to promote Islam as a peaceful religion and killing the corrupted idea of Jihad. Fast forward a hundred and a few years and the world’s biggest problem lies in the NWFP with its roots in a violent notion of Islamic Jihad.
From Bashir:
The mahdi was the second coming of muhammad, he would lead the muslims to victory, during his lifetime I may add. This was the most important person that the muslims awaited.
Mahdi just means guided one. So any muslim who helped re-build Islam could be considered the guided one.
Now, the only reason that Jesus was returning to the world was to clear his name and destroy christianity. Christianity had raised a prophet of allah to god-ship. I assume that allah was much disturbed by this.
What other religion was a total sham? Christianity was built on SHIRK, i.e. associating partners with ALLAH. These were despecable people in the eyes of ALLAH. Could there be a worse off religion?? I think not.
This is why Jesus was to return. Jesus had to clear his name… The mahdi was a far greater personage than Jesus. Even though the mahdi is not spoke of in Bukhari.
From Bashir:
I think that Christianity must be defeated. I think the best way is through argument, not physical war. I think HMGA should have accomplished this in his lifetime. I think muslims should educate themselves. That is the only way to defeat christianity. HMGA gave us a 300 time limit for the death of christianity. Thats a long time. Hadith reports did not give this impression.
A researcher must observe how India is a better country than Pakistan. Both countries were given independence at the same time. But look how India is, then contrast that with Pakistan.
The muslims themselves are in a far worser situation now than in 1880 to 1908. At least in 1908 the muslims had an empire, i.e. The Ottoman Empire.
The brits divided the muslims, then conquered them. And Islam hasnt been the same ever since.
From Bashir:
Just to add to the above:
The aaiil are of the opinion that HMGA’s mission has been severely derailed. I think convoluted is the best word to describe his in-effectiveness. So, in reflection the aaiil believe that `mahdi/messiah was unsuccesful and an overwhelming majority(upwards of 90%) of the mahdi/messiah’s followers have raised him to the level of a 46/46 prophet, instead of a 1/46 prophet.
Muslims could have never imagined this. And of course I have read where M. ali explains that Ahmadiyyat totally resembles the Jews, in terms of the jews rejecting their messiah(jesus), then a group raised that messiah to a level of god-ship.
But, this wasnt suppose to happen. The HP said that his ummah would be exactly like the jews, but that was until the messiah returned…. when the messiah would return he would solve all of the problems in the muslim ummah, not create another problem.
The AMI is viewed very badly by the current ummah. The muslim ummah believes that when jesus returns he will be the same prophet. That’s why HMGA continously wrote that, “no prophet new or OLD can appear”. He stressed OLD, the muslim ummah believed that an OLD prophet was to re-appear, i.e. JESUS.
But, the AMI has taken this one step further, HMBMA wrote that 1000’s(circa 1915) of prophets could and can appear. This is what the ummah rejects. This is why the ummah is so upset with the AMI. And rightfully so.
In Chapter 4 verse 69 it is written that if muslims obey the HP they can be among the prophets, siddiqs, saleh’s and shaheeds. This is what the AMI shows as proof for the continuance of prophethood.
But what kind of prophets are referred to? Is it law-bearing or non-law bearing? The Quran doesnt specify. The Quran never differentiated between the two. This quaranic verse can be misconstrued to mean that even law-bearing prophets can appear.
This proves that in Chapter 33 Verse 40, law bearing or non-law bearing doesnt make a difference. All prophets are the same. According to the terminology of ALLAH.
Historical fact, this verse(chp. 4) was revealed after the battle of UHUD. Muslims disobeyed the HP, and almost lost the war. To prevent this from happening again, GOD offered motivation. Most of the muslim warriors could never achieve ay of those ranks. Most of the muslim warriors werent great people(my opinion). But GOD motivated them. This is just like jihad, a temporal injunction.
Picture this: All the muslims who obeyed the HP during wartime were promised to be able to sit with adam, aaron, joshua, etc etc. But 2 months later came the famous Chapter 33 verse 40, i.e. khatamun nabiyyen.
So did god clarify his position or not? The AMI should ponder on this.
From Usman:
No appointed person of God achieves anything by waving a proverbial magic stick. In fact if that was the case, then God himself could have done so. However that is not the case. Humans have been given a degree of free will and the messengers of God bring the message; the choice to accept the same lies with the people. This is what the Quran says and no Hadith can alter this sunnat of Allah. So the Promised Messiah has fulfilled his mission. The rest is up to the Jamaat he founded and rest of the Muslim Ummah. If they falter then this is their fault. I think Zahid Sb. has already made this point in his posts.
Saying the Promised Messiah created a problem instead of solving problems is like saying (Nauzubillah) that the Holy Prophet Muhammad brought terrorism to the world instead being the “Rehmat-ul-Alamin”. In short ALL persons sent by Allah fulfill their missions. The fruits are borne when the message is accepted by the people…..Allah in his wisdom does eventually make the truth prevail by signs, warnings, trials, tribulations etc etc. The timing is probably known to Allah.
From Bashir:
My intentions were never to impress upon the reader that I personally felt that HMGA had troubled the muslim community.
I was only presenting what I think is the view of the AAIIL. M. Ali viewed the AMI as christianty in it’s fullest form. M. ali wrote that the AMI was destined for this schism. I suggest you read M. ali’s thoughts on this subject.
KK in his book(1914), he wrote something to the effect that he wouldnt be surprised if HMBMA claimed porphethood himself.
The fact is this, the AAIIL view the AMI as major threat to modern day Islam. Possibly the biggest threat ever. The AMI wanted to isolate themsleves from Islam, they did just that.
From Zahid Aziz:
I am sure that we of the AAIIL do not view the AMI as a “major threat to modern day Islam”. It has always been modern materialism, Christian missionary activities (now diminished), other critics of Islam, and the distorted views of orthodox Muslim clerics and fundmentalists (which provide support for the allegations against Islam), which are the great threats.
This reminds me of what a leading Lahore Ahmadi scholar said about the ass (donkey) that the Dajjal is supposed to be riding according to the prophecies. Hazrat Mirza sahib interpreted this as the railway train, the then revolutionary form of transport. Our scholar said that the ass of the Dajjal are also the orthodox Mullahs, because the Dajjal rides on them (i.e. uses their interpretations of Islam) to attack Islam. This actually has support in the Quran, 62:5, in the parable of the “ass carrying books”.
From Bashir:
M.ali wrote that the AMI was exactly like christianity. Did he not?
Christianity is a religion bulit on shirk. What is the AMI?
The AMI view the aaiil as a test by GOD. GOD tested the AMI, GOD caused the split to happen. HMBMA wrote that this type of thing was common in all religious systems.
By the way, no other islamic sect has been viewed as negatively by the ummah as the AMI has been.
Right or wrong?
From Zahid Aziz:
What Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote was that the Qadiani Jamaat has followed the behaviour pattern of Christianity in exaggerating the status of its founder. This certainly does not amount to saying that the AMI have become a different religion from Islam like Christianity.
There are many Muslim groups whose behaviour amounts to shirk in practice but this does not mean that they belong to some other religion than Islam.
If you read about what various Muslim sects say about one another, especially in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, you will find that they often denounce each other as being “worse in kufr than Qadianis”.
The Wahhabis for long were looked upon by Hanafi (i.e. traditional Sunni) Muslims as badly as they look upon Ahmadis. They used to be thrown out of mosques for saying Amin aloud during the prayer. The ulama used to teach that if a dog or a Wahhabi passed near you while you were praying, your prayer got polluted. Maudoodi in the 1930s compared them, in their role as guardians of the Kaba, to Hindu temple keepers (hardwaar kay mahant), and accused them of running the hajj as a tourist industry for the local economy of Saudi Arabia. It was the oil money in the 1970s which turned the ferociously anti-Wahhabi ulama of Pakistan into friends of the Saudis, and there came into existence this so-called Ummah which is supposed to have unanimously declared Ahmadis and Hazrat Mirza sahib as expelled from Islam.
From Bashir:
ZA:
Ok, lets face the facts. M. ali and all other members of the aaiil view HMBMA as a creator of new ideas in religion. What could be worse of a muslim. The only worse people in the eyes of Islam would be the bahais.
Islam is already under serious attack.
KK wrote that he wouldnt be surprised if HMBMA himself claimed prophethood. KK appeared to be very much hurt from all of these alleged new conjectures of HMBMA.
HMBMA wrote in 1915 that he believed that 1000’s of prophets could appear. HMBMA appeared to be full of these type of statements.
Even though he never really believed exactly in those terms. He still grossly overstated a theorem of his.
From T. Ijaz:
Just to answer the question if and when funds were collected for the war effort against the Boers, indeed the Promised Messiah (as) on February 10, 1900 asked for funds to be raised. Once can read the annoucement in Majmoo’a Ishtiharat
From Zahid Aziz:
The only purpose for collecting the funds which is mentioned in that ishtihar is: “for the wounded soldiers of the British government who have been injured in the war in the Transvaal”.
The first half of this ishtihar makes it absolutely plain that this support was offered because the British government had saved the Muslims of the Punjab from destruction and oppression at the hands of the previous Sikh rule, and had:
“…not only saved us from the clutches of those oppressors .. but granted us so much religious freedom that we can without fear propagate our religion in the best possible way.”
“After duty to God, the highest duty in Islam is sympathy for humanity. To express sympathy for the servants of such a benevolent government which is the guardian of our lives and properties, but above all guardian of our religion, is a work of Divine reward.”
Thus, on the basis of human sympathy the Promised Messiah asked his followers to raise funds for the injured British soldiers.
People in England who are “conscientious objectors”, i.e. who object to their country going to war for any reason at all on grounds of conscience (an ideology which came to prominence during the first world war), nonetheless usually give their time and effort to help the wounded soldiers, and even serve in the medical units of the armed forces.
Elsewhere the Promised Messiah has stated that by comparing what relations we have with the Boers (i.e. none at all) with what relations we have with the British, we support the latter.