The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog


New area: Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

latest, 9th July 2018: Can Muslims (-women) marry Non-Believers


See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3‎ — completed, 28th June 2013


July 6th, 2009

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.”

36 Responses to “From ‘Dawn’: Bhutto’s constitutional concessions only emboldened the religious zealots”

  1. 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.


  2. 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.   


  3. 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]


  4. 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.


  5. 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?


  6. July 13th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
    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?


  7. 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.


  8. July 26th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
    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:

    “Once a very eminent man, namely Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal, said to me that one finds [in Islamic history] many people who love the Holy Prophet Muhammad, but the only person who loves the Quran is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.”
    (Paigham Sulh, Friday Khutba of 10th May 1935.)

    “But I would refer Sir Muhammad Iqbal to an incident which he himself so recently related to me when I paid him a visit during his sickness in October 1934. The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, he told me, was then in Sialkot — he did not remember the year, but it was the year 1904 as the facts related by him show. Mian (now Sir) Fazl-i-Husain was then practising as a lawyer in Sialkot, and one day while he (the Mian Sahib) was going to see the Mirza Sahib, he (Sir Muhammad Iqbal) met him in the way, and after inquiring whither he was going he also accompanied him. During the conversation that ensued with the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Mian Sir Fazl-i-Husain asked him if he looked upon those who did not believe in him as kafirs, and the Mirza sahib without a moment’s hesitation replied that he did not.

    “This fact which Sir Muhammad Iqbal himself related to me last year is a clear evidence that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement is not responsible for the present Qadiani doctrine.”
    (Booklet Dr Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s Statement re the Qadianis).

    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:

    “It is futile to make too much investigation in the matter of Mirza sahib. He is a respected, pious and righteous man. Whatever his views have become, let it be so. There are many righteous people who begin to entertain such ideas. These ideas do not benefit or harm us. But it is obligatory on us to respect and have regard for him because of his stature and uprightness. A discussion of whether his views are true or false is entirely fruitless.”

    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.


  9. 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.


  10. July 29th, 2009 at 7:21 am
    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.


  11. July 30th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
    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.


  12. June 7th, 2014 at 3:02 pm
    From Javaid Bashir:

    Bhutto declared Ahmadiya community as non Myslims due to age old demand by the Islamic Parties and Religious Scholars. The dispute was begun many decades ago by their acceptance of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as a Prophet. They were Ostracized at that time. They became apostate by commiting this Sin. No one  who believes in  him as Prophet becomes a Kafir. The finality of Muhammad (peace be upon him_ is essential to remain Muslim. Bhutto made no Concession but did his duty. He settled the 90 year old dispute.


  13. June 7th, 2014 at 7:11 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Events only shortly afterwards showed that the "Islamic Parties and Religious Scholars" then discarded Bhutto and had him hanged. So according to you, Islam allows such deceitful tactics. One day you hail someone for solving a 90 year old dispute, and then on the very 90th anniversary of that dispute (April 1979) you execute him.

    But even before Bhutto "did his duty", you people declared him kafir. This was mentioned by a supporter of his in the 1974 National Assembly proceedings. See this earlier post by me.

    This member of Bhutto's party said that now that Ahmadis are declared kafir (i.e. the rest of Muslims are therefore Muslims), this means that the "Islamic Parties and Religious Scholars" were liars when they declared Bhutto and his party as kafir in 1970.


  14. June 8th, 2014 at 5:19 pm
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    One Mullah even promised Bhutto to "polish your shoes with our beards if you will solve this problem". Their beard had no more value than for polishing the shoes of the irreligious.


  15. @ Javaid Bashir writes – “Bhutto declared Ahmadiya community as non Myslims [sic] due to age old demand by the Islamic Parties and Religious Scholars.”

    Since, the said contributor wrote on this blog, he lumps both Qadiani and Lahori factions into one. Little does he know that both these factions are poles apart on the issue of finality of Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Lahoris are the only declared community in the whole of Muslim world that believes it as an article of faith in absolute finality of prophethood of Prophet Muhammad to the extent that they do not believe in advent of any prophet, old or new, after the Final Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Barring Lahoris, the Qadianis and Sunnis and others, one and all do not believe in the said finality and their differences are only in semantics. Qadianis declare that the Messiah – the Prophet has already come and gone in the person of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad whereas the general body of Muslims still believes in physical return of Jesus son of Mary. Given this commonality, I will lump them all together as deniers of finality of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Sounds painful, but that is a fact which Javaid Bashir cannot deny.

    Thus, by the very definition of a Muslim by Javaid Bashir, he declares himself to be a non-Muslim. The same definition of a Muslim given to him by “Bhutto and Islamic Parties and Religious Scholars” overrides Quran:

    4:94. … do not say to him who offers you `Salâm', (- peace, the Muslim salutation to show himself thereby a Muslim,) `You are not a believer…

    Their definition even supersedes the one given out by the founder of the faith:

    “Whoever offers prayers as we do and turns his face to our Qiblah and eats the animal slaughtered by us, he is a Muslim for whom is the covenant of Allah and His Messengers, so do not violate Allah’s covenant.” [Bukhari 8:28]

    Of note is that the both above quotes not only define a Muslim, but also admonish against declaring a fellow Muslim as kafir, but will Mullahs pay heed? These quotes are a direct existential threat to this Mullah Inc., the patent holder of Kafir Factory.

    Maulana Muhammad Ali discusses these matters in his book ‘Heresy in Islam” (link) which is a required reading for the disputers.


  16. June 25th, 2014 at 7:36 am
    From Javaid Bashir:

    I do not think Iqbal the poet of East was so naive to even consider Mirza Ahmad a sane person or a prophet of any kind. He had mastery over Islam and Shariah. He was a practicing Muslim and stuck to the finality of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). There is no other view. 

    No one can claim to be Muslim and hold such views as Mirza to be a prophet in this information age, when all kind of information is available one click away. Mirza's and his blind followers claims are absurd and derogatuvem they should ask for the pennance., instead of presenting silly arguments.

    They must renounce all such claims and come back in the fold of Islam, otherwise they have become murthid. It means they have become non-muslims by accepting Mirza to be a prophet. 


  17. June 25th, 2014 at 8:28 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Dear Mr Javaid Bashir, Do you think the views of Allama Iqbal's son Javaid Iqbal, as expressed by him in the television discussion at the link below, about Iqbal and Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, are correct? Please watch:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVOMV7vDFck


  18. July 2nd, 2014 at 5:57 am
    From Javaid Bashir:

    This  is ,in response to Mr. Ikram's objections, He lumps together Qadianis, Sunnis , Shias and other sects because they do not beliene in the finality of the Holy Prophet. He cites the example of Messiah's coming after the Prophet as prophet. Jesus was taken into heaven and not crucified as per Quran. He will come back at some point of time , not as a Prophet but as an Umati of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). To call Mirza the Zindique as Prophet as the Qadainais do is nothing but  "APOSTACY"  and the punishment presribed by Quran is to kill those persons.  Mr. Ikram you can draw your own conclusions 

    He is wrong in equating qadianis with other sects of Muslims I know the difference between qadianis and Lahoris , the forner believe in him as the Prophet and the later faction believes that he was an exalted man. But still it makes little difference as the said Ghulam Ahmad Mirza became an apostate by declaring himself as aProphet of Islam, then how can Lahoris justify and revere him as some saint.

    Sunnis , Shias , Brehelvis, Wahabis, deobandis and Maqshbandis all are diffeent sects of Muslims and they believe in the Finality of Prophet in absolute terms.  there are no ifs and buts in that belief. 

    And now to respond to Mr. Zahid aziz , I have not watched the program in which Javed Iqbal said that Dr. Muhammad Iqbal appreciated the ahmadiya movement and praised Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It can not be true. Iqbal was a devout Muslim and was clear about his belief in the Finality of Prophet.  either Javed iqbal nis understood or has bee misquoted to give credence to Zandique Ghulam Ahmad Mirza. We are Muslims and believe in the Finality of the Prophet Mulammad and follow his techimgs as the final word of Allah. As far as I am concerned the discussion is closed on this subject. Mr . Bhutto was not misled by any religious scholar or the party, he himself strongly believed that Qadianis should be declared as Non- Muslims. And as the executive head he solved the age old dispute and source of dischord among the people of PAKISTAN. 


  19. July 2nd, 2014 at 7:25 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Dear Mr Javaid Bashir: It is astonishing that you are challenging the contents of the programme clip without watching it! It is a television discussion on a Pakistani TV channel, hosted by Dr Shahid Masood, in which Javaid Iqbal, Prof. Mahdi Hassan and Dr Israr Ahmad are saying that Hazrat Mirza sahib received acclaim for his services to Islam from famous Muslim leaders, and was greatly admired by Muslim figures such as Iqbal.

    How can Javaid Iqbal be "misquoted" when we can see and hear him speak? Javaid Iqbal even says that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan advised Muslims not to attack Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, but leave him alone, because he is righteous and pious.

    As to your claim that Bhutto "strongly believed that Qadianis should be declared as Non-Muslims", why did Bhutto openly accept the support of the Qadianis during the 1970 elections, due to which he later became Prime Minister?


  20. July 3rd, 2014 at 6:29 am
    From Javaid Bashir:

    Why are you so riled up and agitated over this issue  ? I admitted that I have not watched  the suggested video. Because such videoes are doctored to suit the anchor's own views.  I have extensively read Allama Iqbal, and I admire him  and apprecite his works. I have not read anyting he may or may not have said about Ghulam Ahmad Mirza. Mirza no doubt was a scholar and made some contributions  But I do not think Allama was impressed by this man. I do not need to learn from DR. Javed Iqbal the prodigal son of Great Poet He has most of the time misinterpreted his father's thoughts. He can not be trusted. 

    As far as Sir Syed Ahmad is concerned , he was a reformer and held views that were not popular with the Muslim Scholars. No doubt he is benefactor of Muslims and the progress of the Muslims.He wanted to bring unity among the variou sects of Muslims It is not neccessary to follow his precepts. he was a great visionary, and moulded the people's minds by educating them , I hold him in high esteem as a reformer , essayist and educator. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. I am not sure  as to what were his views about  Ghulam Ahmed Mrza. I do not care what Sir Syed or Dr, Allama Iqbal said about the fake prophet  eor your satisfaction I will watch the videoe and get back to you on Javed Iqba's views.l 


  21. July 3rd, 2014 at 6:32 am
    From Javaid Bashir:

    Mr Aziz by the way the U tube has been banned for more than 1/1/2 years. It is not possible to watch it. 


  22. July 3rd, 2014 at 11:35 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Mr Javaid Bashir: You stated in a comment above: "I do not think Iqbal the poet of East was so naive to even consider Mirza Ahmad a sane person or a prophet of any kind."

    Then you said that "It can not be true" that "Iqbal appreciated the ahmadiya movement and praised Mirza Ghulam Ahmad."

    But when we present evidence to prove that it is true, you now say: "I do not care what Sir Syed or Dr, Allama Iqbal said" about Hazrat Mirza sahib.

    You should read Iqbal's speech of 1910 at Aligarh University entitled Millat Baiza Per Ayk ‘Imrani Nazar. I have the edition published by Aeenah Adab, Lahore, 1970. The following is what Iqbal says (as translated by me from Urdu):

    "In the Punjab a true model of Islamic life has arisen in the form of that community which is known as the Qadiani sect.
    (p. 84) 

    In Urdu in this sentence he has called the Jamaat of Hazrat Mirza sahib as: Islami seerat ka thaith namoona.

    I have scanned pages 84 and 85, along with the title pages of the book, and you can read them at this link.


  23. July 3rd, 2014 at 4:14 pm
    From Javaid Bashir:

    Mr Zahid Aziz you hae not given the name of the book  in which Dr. Iqbal has said those things about Mirza G. Ahmad.  I will tyr to find the Aligarh University adddresses by him during the period mentioned by you. Since you think there is evidence present in those lectures.  

    The other source his son lives in Lahore. I will contact him and pose him the question about Allama's praise of Mirza Sahib. But still hold the position made clear from my earlier statements. No one  who declares  Mirza as the Prophet  becomes apostate. i do not think if Iqbal lived longer he would have revisited the issue of Qadianis. For the sake of knowledge , i would ask you , Do you believe that Mr Ghulam Ahmad is a Prophet.? 


  24. July 3rd, 2014 at 4:53 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Mr Javaid Bashir: You write "Since you think there is evidence present in those lectures."

    It's not what I think. I have shown you the pages where Iqbal says that the Jamaat created in Qadian in Punjab is a true model of Islamic teachings. I not only gave you the name of the book, I have shown you the image of its title page.

    If you want more, please read this page where we have displayed Iqbal's paper in The Indian Antiquary research journal, September 1900, in which he wrote:

    "M. Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, probably the profoundest theologian among modern Indian Muhammadans."

    When you contact Dr Javaid Iqbal, you can ask him whether that discussion on television took place whose link I gave above, in which he participated.

    Regarding your question, whether we believe Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet, if you have at all read this blog you would have realised that we belong to the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, who believe that he did not claim to be a prophet, and that no prophet, new or old, can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad.


  25. July 3rd, 2014 at 5:06 pm
    From Javaid Bashir:

    Mr. Zahid Aziz I hae found a book by Maulana Sher Ahmad translated by you in English. In that book it has been written that in the last four years of his life , Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal repudiate his view about the Ahmadia movement and the founder of the Qadiani Sect.  You have refuted your own claims about Iqbal. The book entitled Sir Muhammad Iqbal and Ahmadiya movement is available on the internet. You nust be aware ot the contents of this book as it is the English Translation of Sher Ahmad's book in Urdu.

    I do not why you still insist on Iqbal's good relations and praise for Mirza sahib, whereas he repudiated his earlier views before hs death. Is not it intellectual dishonesty ?


  26. July 3rd, 2014 at 5:18 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    So it is "intellectual dishonesty" for us to write, translate and publish that book in which we ourselves write that Iqbal issued statements against the Ahmadiyya Movement? To tell the truth is intellectual dishonesty according to you.

    The fact that you didn't know about what Iqbal wrote in the last four years of his life, and you found it out from our publication, shows, I regret to say, height of ignorance on your part.

    Read chapter 6 of that book entitled: Opposes Qadianis but vindicates Lahore Jamaat.

    As shown in that chapter, a month before Iqbal's death it is recorded in his conversations by a student of his:

    “The Allama said: 'On the subject of prayer Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Mirza sahib went to opposite extremes. … Sir Sayyid held the view that one did not gain anything from prayer except inner consolation. On the opposite side was Mirza sahib who said that everything is possible by means of prayer: you keep on praying, and what you want to happen shall come about.' …

    [Compiler of these conversations adds comment]: Mirza sahib went to an extreme. He prayed about every matter, and he received requests for prayer on every matter. So much so that, besides other things such as propagation of Islam, debates with other religions, insistence on the truth of Islam, this was another factor which attracted the hearts towards Mirza sahib. In any case, prayer is a part of faith.”
    (Iqbal kay huzur nashistain aur goftaguain, compiled by Maulana Sayyid Nazir Niazi, vol 1, p. 360.)


  27. Below is my response (in regular font) to the reply of Javaid Bashir (in italics)

    He [– ikram] lumps together Qadianis, Sunnis , Shias and other sects because they do not beliene [sic] in the finality of the Holy Prophet. He cites the example of Messiah's coming after the Prophet as prophet.

    Fact is that it is not me, but they themselves who lump together, because they all believe in a prophet after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

    Jesus was taken into heaven and not crucified as per Quran.

    I totally agree that according to Quran Jesus has been taken into heaven, but not bodily.

    He [– Jesus] will come back at some point of time,

    He, i.e. Jesus son of Mary is dead in Quran and dead people never come back to life. Please prove by Quran that he did not die on this earth and went to heaven in his body.

     not as a Prophet but as an Umati of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

    At least it is agreed that on his re- advent, Jesus will not be a Prophet. Thank you.

    Before these matters are discussed any further, it behooves one to read the following article posted on this website:

    Jesus – the Descent, but not of Son of Mary (link)


  28. July 4th, 2014 at 2:40 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    In a discussion such as the one about Iqbal with Javaid Bashir, it is probable that one party has a misconception about what the other party is trying to show. So I will clarify what Lahore Ahmadis have tried to show on this much-discussed issue.

    Yes, Iqbal published statements from 1934 (four years before he died) condemning the "Ahmadiyya Movement" as being un-Islamic and a danger to Muslims, and including Hazrat Mirza sahib in his condemnation. However, Iqbal's keen support for the work of the Ahmadiyya Movement all his life up to that point considerably devalues his later opposition. His earlier words and actions undermine the reasons he gave for opposing the Movement.

    What he was opposing was the Qadiani Jamaat interpretation of Ahmadiyyat and their views about Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's status. He was not opposing the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad whom he had personally met, or the work of his friends the Lahore Ahmadi leaders. But even his opposition to Qadianis lacks credibility because Iqbal was a friend of Qadianis till this last phase, even though he knew since 1914 that they presented Hazrat Mirza sahib as a prophet.

    To present only Iqbal's opposition as being his views on Ahmadiyyat is to conceal the whole truth and suppress the complete picture. Unfortunately, in the propaganda atmosphere which prevails in Pakistan (and not only about Ahmadiyyat) there is no concept of balance and drawing a conclusion from all the facts. People are presented with a picture where one side is good and the other side is bad. Psychologically it gives security to the minds of those who don't like to think much.

    We are trying to show people the whole picture of Iqbal's relationship with the Ahmadiyya Movement. It leads us to conclude that Iqbal's opposition was due to political considerations. As long as his support for Ahmadiyyat did not hamper him politically, he was expressing it in speech and action. He never condemned Qadianis from 1914 to 1934 for not believing in the finality of prophethood. When Iqbal had to compete with the Ahrar party for leadership of the Muslims, he found it convenient to attack Qadiani beliefs, and to do so as if their beliefs correctly represented Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.


  29. July 5th, 2014 at 4:20 am
    From Javaid Bashir:

    If we examine the Amadiya movement in India over the greater part of the British Rule, we would be able to logical dissect the movement..Historically the Orthodox views prevailed among the Muslims. The Finality of prophet was ordained in the Holy book Quran. The founder of Ahmadiyat  cleverly manipulated his folloers to spread his message. He provided revolutional basis to the new religious order.  Britishers were tolerant of this movement because it suited their political purposes. They patronized the Ahmadiya movement and its founder. No one interpreted his claims in the light of Islam and the teachings of the Holy Prophet. In a decadent society and the condition of subjugation  some of the poor folks accepted him to be the promised Messiah. They were looking for the second coming of the Christ or Mehdi. When Ghulam Ahmad rose to prominance  the Orthodox religious Ulema opposed him. Thus the Britisherd were able to sow the seeds of dischord among the Indian Muslims.

    In Iran Bahai movement was started by Baha ud dun claiming himself a Prophet. But the climate in Iran was not conducive  fior such heretic ideas. The Bahais were persecuted and thus the movement was halted. 

    In the case of Ahamadiya movement the resistance was met by the support of the Britishers, thus giving it a prolonged lide.

    The condition in India were suitable for this sort of sdventure  It became a cohesive and vibrant movrment. Ahmadis believe that Jesus died a normal death. So his physical death has occured on this earth. So the second coming of Jesus is spiritual not physical. Thus this belief provided the founder of Ahmadiya movement  a religios excuse to launch himself as the Prophetor promised Messiah.


  30. July 5th, 2014 at 4:25 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Blog readers can see that the response from Javaid Bashir is in no way a reply on the issue under discussion. It is just an opportunity for propaganda.

    In one of his comments above, he wrote about Javaid Iqbal, son of Allama Iqbal: "I will contact him and pose him the question about Allama's praise of Mirza Sahib."

    I hope he will live up to his promise and then let us know whether Javaid Iqbal confirms the genuineness of the TV discussion in which he appeared, whose link I earlier gave. The Quran requires Muslims to be true to their promises (although it is possible Javaid Bashir may hold the view that we are non-Muslims and it is allowable to make false promises to non-Muslims).


  31. July 6th, 2014 at 11:04 am
    From Javaid Bashir:

    Mr. Aziz rest assure I have the good intention to meet Javed Iqbal. I have good track record of keeping promises. I seldom make empty promises. may be you have the experience of the wrong crowd. I as a devout Muslim believes in the importance of keeping the promises. 

    Coming to the discussion on the thread bearing of Ahmadiyya religious believes. I would invite your attention to the plight of Poor Nuzhat Haneef a Pakistani born American national living in Minnesota.  She has renounced Ahmadiyya religion and become a professed atheist and agnostic. She has been hounded by the Ahmadiyya community, because of her views and allegation against Ahmadiyya Cult. She had witten a book, entitle Nuzhat Haneef Ahmadiyya Allegation.  Can you stop her persecution at the hands of Zealous Ahmadis ? I request you to intervene as you are their spokesman and hold position of authority within the Lahori Community. Will you get back to me on this disturbing issue.


  32. July 6th, 2014 at 2:30 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Mr Javaid Bashir: It gives me great pleasure to know that you intend to speak to the venerable Javed Iqbal sahib. Please ask him about that television discussion in which he took part and to confirm if it is genuine. You can also ask him about the references from Allama Iqbal that I have been quoting above.

    As to your request that we (or I) can intervene to stop the persecution of the lady whom you have mentioned, I and the religious community to which I belong have absolutely no control or influence over the community which, you say, is persecuting her. We are not members of their community, nor do we agree with the status of prophethood they assign to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, nor do we recognise their khalifa as head of Ahmadis of the world. So we can't do anything to stop her persecution.

    Perhaps you could answer this question. If this lady had been a Sunni Muslim and become, as you say, "a professed atheist and agnostic", and was then persecuted by Sunni Muslims, and if living in Pakistan she was sentenced to death, would you condemn and oppose the persecution that she was subjected to?


  33. July 6th, 2014 at 6:02 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Two Questions for Mr. Javaid Bashir

    Mr. Bashir you wrote: 'Britishers were tolerant of this movement because it suited their political purposes. They patronized the Ahmadiya movement and its founder.'

    1-Question: If what you are stating is true then please tell us why Britishers were tolerant and patronizing HMGA and his Ahmadiyya Movement when he was driving daggers in heart of their religion by telling them 'Your God (Jesus Christ) is dead', sending literature and opening mission houses in heart of their religion i.e. Chrsitian countries in Europe and USA???

    Mr. Bashir you wrote: In a decandant society and the condition of subjugation some of the poor folks accepted him to be the promised Messiah.

    2-Question: In 1953 and then again in 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya roits in Pakistan, opponents of HMGA had a very important demand, "Remove Ahmadis from the important positions in Civil Service, Military Service, Political Service, Educational Service, Business Service, Economic Service, Judicial Service, Health Service etc". Please tell us if what you wrote is true then tell us how "few poor folks" got to top positions in all the above services in Pakistan???

    For intelligent and honest readers: Top and Educated Muslim families in length and breath of British India did pledge of allegiance to HMGA and believed and supported his Ahmadiyya Movment. This is the reason when East and West Pakistan won their freedom from British Raj, members of families who pledged to HMGA ended up in prominent and important positions in Pakistan. I would further say that had Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad NOT distorted and changed beliefs, claims and mission of HMGA in 1914 onwards, most followers of HMGA would have been in good books of general Pakistani population and they would have ruled the country since its independence and made it the most prosperous, developed, advance, educated, healthy, and peaceful country in the entire world.


  34. July 6th, 2014 at 6:11 pm
    From Javaid Bashir:

    Mr Zahid Aziz , I understand your position. I am glad that you clarified the difference between qadianis and Lahori ahmadiyyas I am aware of the difficulties faced by you  I thought they could  be persuaded logically and bearing some moral influence over them. I guess not. 

    As for your question what if she was a Sunni or Shia, and then broke up with the sect. And became a professed atheist or agnostic, then if she was persecuted by the Sunnis or Shias , what could have been done in that case. I think I would respect her change of mind or the heart. I would plead with the community leaders to appeal to the conscience of the respective sect. The religious leaders and scholars are respected by the community and their followers accept their commands. If I could intervene in the matter, I would try my best to prevail upon the persecutors. thanks anyway We shall find a way to either stop her persecution legally or provide her security.


  35. July 7th, 2014 at 4:15 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Mr Javaid Bashir: I am very pleased by your answer about what you would do if a Sunni or Shia left Islam and became an atheist. I and the community that I belong to fully agree with your standpoint.

    The difficulty you will face is that almost all Muslims, except a very small number, believe that the religion of Islam teaches that if a Muslim leaves Islam then he or she should be killed. This is the qatl-i murtadd issue. In some Muslim countries it is the law of the country that a Muslim who leaves Islam is committing a criminal offence, for which the only penalty is death. That is the legal position in those countries.

    If you tried intervening in such a matter in any Muslim country whatsoever, the religious leaders and scholars that you mention will tell you that according to Islam the death penalty must be applied to anyone who leaves Islam.


  36. July 7th, 2014 at 5:10 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Javaid Bashir: Please Put Money Where Your Mouth Is.

    You wrote: “I would plead with the community leaders to appeal to the conscience of the respective sect. The religious leaders and scholars are respected by the community and their followers accept their commands.”

    I draw your attention to the lady in Sudan who will be eternally thankful to you if you can get her a new lease of life:

    Mariam Ibrahim, Sudanese Woman Sentenced For Apostasy, Faces New Lawsuit
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/mariam-ibrahim-sudan-lawsuit_n_5551886.html


Leave a Reply