From ‘Dawn’: Bhutto’s constitutional concessions only emboldened the religious zealots
I was interested to read this column in the Dawn.
I quote from it:
“Though in private, Bhutto accused the Islamic parties of being ‘anti-socialist American stooges,’ in public he went along with some of his advisers’ counsel and declared the Ahmadiyya community non-Muslim, naively believing this concession would appease and contain his Islamist opponents. The truth is, the Islamists were only emboldened by this gesture.”
From ikram:
Hypocritical behavior is self-defeating. Quran repeatedly admonishes against it and highlights this moral principle e.g.
58:14. Have you not seen those (hypocrites) who befriend a people who have incurred the displeasure of Allâh? Such people belong neither to you nor to them and they swear to falsehood, and that (they do it) knowingly.
Clearly Bhutto was one of the hypocrites of his time, who tried to befriend an arrogant theocracy at the cost of a freethinking movement in Islam. In the end he pleased none, neither his victims, the Ahmadiyya community, nor the Mullahs who then and now have repeatedly proven that they have incurred the displeasure of Allâh.
From Bashir:
You know, sometimes I am confused by all the ahmadis that I meet or converse with. All ahmadis say bad things against their government etc etc. Ahmadis forget that ahmadiyyat is the biggest threat to islam that has ever been in existence.
Muslims want to cling to their version of Islam, they dont want ahmadiyyat. Ahmadis want to convert the world to their way of thinking. It’s almost more political than religious. If ahmadiyyat is successful that means that Islam will be erased from the earth.
Muslims dont understand how ahmadiyyat is the best version of Islam. Muslims want to keep their own version of it, flaws and all. Ahmadiyyat is a version of Islam, muslims dont accept your version.
Although I disagree with the in-humane behavior of the muslims in general. What is overlooked is the fact that in all primitive societies change was never accepted. Even when Islam became dominate in the arabian peninsula there were many tribes who didnt want to change. Muslims had to fight wars against many tribes. Ibn Hisham’s book is littered with war stories, where in most cases the muslims were the agressors. It can be argued that most of the arabs accepted Islam because of political reasons as opposed to heart-warming desires. When the HP died lots of muslims quit the religion, they thought that Islam would die, so they quit.
In any barbarian society change will not be accepted. This is a norm that has transcended across every period of evolution. I wish more ahmadis looked at this perspective when studying the sociology of islamic pakistan.
From ikram:
The mind set outlined in the above post is what Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal (probably an Ahmadi) addressed in his poetry:
aaeen-e-no say darna; tarz-e-kuhn peh arrnah
scared of the new (ideas); stuck with the old (interpretations)
manzil yehee kathan hay kau-moan key zindagi meh
this is the stumbling block for (the progress of) the nations
The scribe of the above post got it backwards. Factually, it is the (Lahori) Ahmadiyya movement, which wants to be left alone and not otherwise. In spirit, all that an Ahmadi has to say to their fellow non-Ahmadi Muslim brothers is:
109:1. Say ( plainly to those present and who are not), `O you disbelievers!
109:2. `I will not at all worship those (false deities) which you worship,
109:3. `Nor are you worshippers of Him Whom I worship.
109:4. `Neither have I ever been a worshipper of those (false ancestral customs, superstitions, and deities) which you worship,
109:5. `Nor are you worshippers on the lines on which I worship.
109:6. `For you is your recompense and for me is my recompense.’
In my own experience, most of the Muslims are not primitive. But the Muslims that the above scribe refers to are implicitly alluded to in Quran:
5:104. …They say, `Sufficient for us is that (tradition) whereon we have found our forefathers.’ What! (would they follow them blindly) even though their forefathers had no knowledge whatsoever and had no guidance?
43:22. Nay, but they say, “Behold, We found our forefathers agreed on what to believe – and, verily, it is in their footsteps that we find our guidance!”
43:23. And thus it is: whenever We sent, before thy time, a warner to any community, those of its people who had lost themselves entirely in the pursuit of pleasures would always say, “Behold, we found our forefathers agreed on what to believe – and, verily, it is but in their footsteps that we follow!”
[The Holy Quran – translated by Allamah Nooruddin]
From Ali:
Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal (probably an Ahmadi) .
That is fanciful at best, and an out right lie at worst.
Before his death he wrote a considerable amount of material against the claims of Mirza Sahib.
Please see the following link:
http://www.tolueislam.com/Bazm/drIqbal/AI_ahmadism.htm
Of this there can be little doubt.
From Ali:
Iqbal seems to be very well aquainted with the claims of Mirza sahib.
However I find Iqbal’s understanding of buruzi prophethood quite challenging to say the least. Could anyone here offer a more succint and precise definition of Buruzi prophethood? Can you name any other Buruzi prophets other than Mirza sahib? Below is a quote from Iqbal:
“|He claims to be a buruz of the Holy Prophet of Islam insinuating thereby that, being a buruz of him, his “finality” is virtually the “finality” of Muhammad; and that this view of the matter, therefore, does not violate, the “finality” of the Holy Prophet. In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet, he conveniently loses sight of the temporal meaning of the idea of Finality. It is, however, obvious that the word buruz, in the sense even of complete likeness, cannot help him at all; for the buruz must. always remain the other side of its original. Only in the sense of reincarnation a buruz becomes identical with the original. Thus if we take the word buruz to mean “like in spiritual qualities” the argument remains ineffective; if, on the other hand, we take it to mean reincarnation of the original in the Aryan sense of the word, the argument becomes plausible; but its author turns out to be only a Magian in disguise. ”
I understand the qadianis have done away with all of this verbal gymnasyics. Below is a quote from the current qadiani head:
“Huzur said it should be absolute clear to everyone that the Mahdi whose advent was prophesised, is granted the status of a Prophet and a Messenger in subservience of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) and that it is the same thing to be a Prophet and a Messenger. The Promised Messiah (on whom be peace) said that a person who is the direct recipient of Divine revelation is called a Prophet and a Messenger. He said that wherever in the earlier scriptures his coming was cited, he was mentioned as a Prophet.”
Has Mirza sahib elaborated on the concept of “subserviant” prophets in any of his writings? What are conditions of being a subserviant prophet? For example can there be a subserviant prophet of a subserviant prophet or is that against the Sharia? Did the earliest Muslims like Bukhari even know that this concepted existed?
From Zahid Aziz:
Dear Mr Ali,
I see that you have woken up again from your slumber, as you do once every few weeks, and then you throw a stone in this forum, after which you relapse back into a long sleep. Please stay awake long enough to read the following.
Please view the video clip from ARY ONE TV of the discussion chaired by Dr Shahid Masood with Dr Javed Iqbal, Prof Mahdi Hasan and Dr Israr Ahmad. They admitted that Iqbal stated that true Islam had appeared in Qadian in Hazrat Mirza sahib’s movement.
You may also care to read our publication Dr Sir Muhammad Iqbal and the Ahmadiyya Movement at this link.
I am prepared to have a debate with you or anyone of your choosing, on any forum, in any place, on the specific issue where my claim will be that: till long after the death of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Iqbal considered Ahmadis to be great servants of Islam and he worked and co-operated with them. Kindly let me know precisely what your counter claim will be.
This issue needs to be settled once and for all. Are you prepared to do it, or induce someone to do it on your behalf?
From Bashir:
Honestly, I dont understand what the big deal is. Iqbal didnt approve of the prophethood of HMGA. But, i think that was under the assumption that HMGA claimed real prophethood.
I still have to read the book by M. Ali. After I do that, I will post my concluding remarks on this matter.
Didnt Iqbal support the AMI before 1914. Doesnt it make sense that as soon as HMGA was made a prophet, then, Iqbal moved away from ahmadiyyat. I think that is the jist of the story. I will know more shortly.
From Zahid Aziz:
There is of course no big deal as such. The point is that our opponents say, or imply, that a man of such high authority in Islam as Iqbal has denounced Hazrat Mirza sahib as making false, un-Islamic claims. We could reply to this by questioning whether Iqbal is actually such an authority on Islam that his views and rulings cannot be wrong.
Another approach is to show that until 1932 or 1933 Iqbal was a great admirer of Hazrat Mirza sahib, supported the work of the Ahmadiyya Movement, and worked even with the second Qadiani Khalifa (long after 1914) on matters of common Muslim interest.
Why didn’t his criticism of the teachings of Hazrat Mirza sahib, which he made in two little pamphlets in about 1933, occur to Iqbal before this time?
In Iqbal’s own lifetime in that period, Maulana Muhammad Ali published the following statements:
So our response to our opponents is: let us look at the entire record of Iqbal.
Even Iqbal’s teacher, Syed Mir Hasan was a great admirer of Hazrat Mirza sahib. This is confirmed in an Urdu book which is a researched biography of Syed Mir Hasan written by Dr Syed Sultan Mahmud Husain and published by no less than the Iqbal Academy of Pakistan which is part of the Ministry of Culture of the Government of Pakistan.
This book of 200 pages contains some 15 references that are, in one way or another, to the favour of the Ahmadiyya Movement. It quotes, for example, a letter by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan to the brother of Mir Hasan:
The “big deal” is that our opponents are either ignorant of, or they are denying, or they are seeking to conceal, all this information.
By the way, Iqbal was a friend of my wife’s maternal grandfather. My mother-in-law used to relate to us how when her father visited his patients, including Iqbal, he would take her along. Iqbal was also directly responsible for this gentleman’s death in February 1936, which came about only because of Iqbal’s campaign against the Ahmadiyya Movement.
From Bashir:
Thanks for the input ZA. I actually just read the books by the aaiil in terms of Iqbal. I will not discuss whether HMGA was a prophet or not, but I will write under the assumption that HMGA is a prophet(ummati nabi).
It seems that Iqbal was taken aback by the prophethood of HMGA. Any time a new prophethood as arisen in Islam there has been a problem, as is the present case–I believe that this is what Iqbal wrote.
HMGA becoming a prophet(circa 1901) has caused a disconnect between Muslims and the ahamdis. I think that is what Iqbal was referring to. Prophethood within Islam is a very dangerous realm for any muslim. Any prophethood within Islam could tear at the fabric of what Islam is. That is also under the assumption that all prophets bring a law(which they do). Muslims feel that if another prophet would appear after muhammad, that prophet would have the power to change or alter the Koran, as all prophets did before Muhammad. All prophets had the ability to change anything that allah commanded them to change. Whether they exercised this ability is a different matter altogether.
HMGA has given a new definition of prophethood(circa 1901). This definition (non-law bearing) is more closely related to the muhadass than any other rank. Iqbal and the rest of the muslims are really upset with this new definition. HMBMA endorsed this defintion as inside the prophets. M. ali the aaiil claimed that this defintion and all others were equal to muhaddassiyyat.
In conclusion, Iqbal was perturbed by the qadiani interpretation of prophethood, Iqbal predicted(so to speak) that the general muslims would be against this type of prophethood.
Iqbal did like what the aaiil had done for Islam. He supported the aaiil and was friendly with the leadership of the aaiil. This was not the case with the AMI.
From Rashid Jahangiri:
Initial reason of Iqbal to turn away from HMGA.
Iqbal revered HMGA even after his death. The proof is that he supported HMGA son Qadinai Jamaat Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to chair Kashmir Committee. In the first session of committee that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad chaired, on Mirza Mahmud Ahmad suggestion everyone took oath to keep all that was to be discussed secret, so that members can freely express themselves. After some time two Muslim clerks who use to work in office of Viceroy of India showed confidential file to Iqbal that had reports of Kashmir Committee meetings provided by none other than Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself. These details were supposed to be secret. That was turning point for Iqbal. Iqbal immediately telegrammed Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to resign from Kashmir Committee, other wise he threatened to expose him. From that moment onwards added by political pressure of religious right made Iqbal to openly turn against HMGA.
This plus some details on how two Muslim employees reached Iqbal were narrated to me late Abdul Mannan Omar sahib.
From Zahid Aziz:
The fact is that before 1932 or so Iqbal never wrote against even the Qadiani belief in the prophethood of Hazrat Mirza sahib. He regarded them as Muslims, otherwise how could he have worked with them on the Kashmir committee, which was constituted by Muslims to campaign for the rights of Muslims in Kashmir.
His opposition came about due to a clash of political ambitions. Then he presented his opposition as if it were on religious grounds, and what better ground to use than the denial of the finality of prophethood.
This is a common practice in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent Muslim environment. If you have a political difference with someone, you point to some wrong religious belief of that person which you can condemn as un-Islamic, and make your opposition to that person seem like a jihad in Allah’s way.