The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog


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

latest, 6th July 2017: The Triad of Death, Heaven and Hell – All in a Day’s Work


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


October 8th, 2010

Exchange between Ahmed Toson of Qadiani Jamaat (Egypt) and Zahid Aziz

An e-mail came to our website address from someone called Ahmed Toson, a member of the Qadiani Jamaat in Egypt. I responded, which then led to further exchanges.

At this link you can read our correspondence.

I have decided to make it public because I found the following statements and questions by Ahmed Toson to be grossly opposed to the writings of the Promised Messiah:

[quote]

“However , Allah never ask from us to believe in mojadedon and mohadeson, never sent them to accomplish the prophet’s missions , mojadedon never declared that they have sent from Allah to the people ,, never people been punished if reject the mojadedon

– Why Allah decided to sent the mojadeden to accomplish the prophets missions and change his habit ” sona ” ? do you think Allah may continue in changing his sonas and decide to come in the form of humans?

– Are there any verses from the Quran ask people to believe in mojadedon or mohadeson if declared that the god sent them?”

[unquote]

(His argument from this is that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet.)

To see just how Ahmed Toson’s view about mujaddids and muhaddases is totally against the teachings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, please read the following sections of his book Shahadat-ul-Quran:

http://www.ahmadiyya.org/books/testi-hq/ch2c.htm

http://www.ahmadiyya.org/books/testi-hq/ch2d.htm#n

http://www.ahmadiyya.org/books/testi-hq/ch2b.htm#lo

I quote below some extracts, in order, from the above links.

But you will observe that Ahmed Toson has very cleverly tried to bar me from quoting from the Promised Messiah by saying:

“So every beliefs or words that conflict with the holy Quran should be rejected and any beliefs should be accepted from the quran and because of that I have asked you to reinforce your beliefs about the promised messiah PBUH that he was a mojadid and mohaddes from the Quran and prove that he wasn’t a heresy ” bedaa ” but you chose instead to tell the promised messiah statements and which we believe that you understand it in a wrong way according to the book ” Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala “.

Ahmed Toson wanted me to answer his questions from the Quran only. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has already answered them in his book which he entitled Shahadat-ul-Quran (‘Testimony or Evidence of the Quran’)!

Extracts from Shahadat-ul-Quran:

(In the context of this discussion, I have slightly amended below my own earlier translation as given in the above links.)

— according to the Divine custom (sunnat-ullah), that can only happen if there come, from time to time, deputies of the Holy Prophet (na’ib rasul) possessing all the blessings of messengership by way of image, having been granted all the favours given to the prophets.

— The word khalifa has been adopted to indicate that they shall be heirs of the Holy Prophet and partake of his blessings, as used to happen in the earlier ages; the faith shall be revived at their hands and security shall be established after the prevalence of fear, i.e. they shall come at times when there would be disruption in the house of Islam. Then, after their coming, those who rebel against them would be the evil-doers and the wicked. This is a reply to the point raised by some ignorant people who ask, Is it obligatory upon us to acknowledge the saints (auliya)? God says that certainly it is obligatory, and those who oppose them are transgressors, if they die in the state of opposition.

— when, after the passage of a period of time, the dust of corrupted notions settles upon the holy teachings, and the face of the pure truth is hidden, then to show that beautiful face there come mujaddids, muhaddases and spiritual khalifas.

— Unfortunately however, the critic does not understand that mujaddids and spiritual khalifas are needed by the Muslim people in the same way as were the prophets required from ancient times.

— It should also be remembered that for every age the conclusive proving of the case for Islam takes place in a different sense, and the mujaddid of the time comes with the powers, faculties and qualities upon which depends the reformation of the prevalent evils. God will ever continue to do this, as long as He pleases, so that signs of righteousness and reform remain in the world. These matters are not without proof; on the contrary, repeated observations testify to them.

And to say that it is not obligatory to believe in the mujaddids is to deviate from the command of God because He says: “And whoever disbelieves after this, they are the transgressors” (24:55), i.e. after the sending of the khalifas, whoever remains a denier of them, he is among the transgressors.

— To say that the Quran and the Hadith are sufficient for us, and that association with the righteous is not necessary, is itself against the Quranic teaching because Almighty God says: “And be with the truthful ones [sadiqin, plural of sadiq]” — (9:119). … the “truthful ones” are the prophets, messengers, muhaddases and the completely perfect holy men (auliya kamil), upon whom heavenly light fell and who saw God Almighty in this very world with the eye of certainty.

— And the mujaddid whose work bears striking similarity to the appointed task of one of the apostles, is called by the name of that apostle in the sight of God.

— Now it has been proved from the Holy Quran that in this blessed Muslim nation a system of perpetual khilafat has been established in the manner and likeness of the one which was established in the dispensation of Moses, and there is merely a verbal difference to the effect that at that time, for the support of the Mosaic religion, there used to arise prophets, but now muhaddases come.

— For this reason, the mujaddid of this century came in the likeness of Jesus, and was called the Promised Messiah because of intense similarity.

— so it was that our Holy Prophet was also granted servants of the law who, in accordance with the hadith “The learned ones among my followers are like the prophets of the Israelites”, were Divinely inspired (mulham) and muhaddas.

— If it is said that in the Mosaic order those who were raised for the advocacy of the faith were prophets, and Jesus was also a prophet, the reply is that the prophet (nabi) and the muhaddas are on a par in terms of being sent (mursal). Just as God has called prophets as mursal, so has He termed muhaddases as mursal.

— …by “messengers” (rusul) are meant those who are sent, whether such a one is an apostle (rasul), prophet (nabi) or muhaddas. As our Master and Messenger, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, is the khatam al-anbiya, and after him there cannot come any prophet, for this reason muhaddases take the place of prophets in this religious system.

40 Responses to “Exchange between Ahmed Toson of Qadiani Jamaat (Egypt) and Zahid Aziz”

  1. If Ahmed Toson really belongs to Qadiani Jamaat, then I feel sorry for our Qadiani Jamaat friend Ahmed Toson. He will get into trouble from his Qadiani Jamaat Khalifa 5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad and from some Ameer, or from missionary incharge, or Murabi. He has violated the Qadiani jamaat policy of NOT allowing their followers to discuss Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib with Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement member on a public forum. Especially when in his discussion Ahmed Toson realized that he holds beliefs that are CONTRARY to Qadiani Jamaat Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (QK2), and ABSOLUTELY AGAINST teaching of QK2. Brother Ahmed Toson has tried to do damage control, by stating: “Kindly don’t consider me as a representative of the other group ,, just make it personal conversation……”


  2. There is a sermon delivered by Maulvi Abdul Karim sahib, recorded in In Al Hakam Nov 24, 1902. On page 7 commenting on verse 9:127, “surely a Messenger has come unto you from among yourselves’, he stated:

     “in 1300 years (i.e since death of Holy Prophet), no one has had the opportunity to recite (this verse 9:127) before a congregation and God’s Rasul and mamur is actually sitting in front of him. Praise be to Allah, we are blessed”

    It would thus appear he took the Promised Messiah as an actual Rasul, and the last time this blessed phenomenon occured was when the companions were with the Holy Prophet.


  3. It is interesting to read an interpretation of this verse by the Promised Messiah in his book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, published October 1902. It is in Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 15, pages 279-281 of this volume. He is discussing the point that one appointed by Allah for a mission must belong to a highly-esteemed family and lineage.

    “We have explained earlier that such auliya who are not appointed, i.e. they are not nabi or rasul or muhaddas, and are not from among those who call the world towards God by the command and revelation of God, these auliya need not belong to some high family or exalted clan … As contrasted with them are those auliya who are known as rasul or nabi or muhaddas, who come bearing the office of ruler and judge from God, and people are ordered to accept them as their imam and leader. … For elders of this rank, the law of God has always been that He raises them from a clan or family of a high status …

    It is in reference to this wisdom and necessity that Allah in the Holy Quran has stated about our Holy Prophet: Surely a messenger has come to you who excels the whole world in terms of his family, tribe and nation.”

    So the Promised Messiah states that the qualities of the messenger mentioned in this verse must apply to every one of the auliya who is appointed by Allah’s command to call people to himself, whether he is a nabi, rasul or muhaddas.

    For those readers who may be puzzled as to where this verse mentions “from an exalted family”, when its wording is actually “from among yourselves” (min anfusi-kum), the Promised Messiah has added a footnote. In the footnote he explains that there is another reading (qiraat) in which the text here is min anfasi-kum (“fa” instead of “fu”) which means “from the most exalted of you”. But he adds that even the standard reading, “from yourselves”, can lead to the same meaning as Allah is addressing the Quraish who were an exalted tribe.


  4. @ Tahir Ijaz and ZA

    As we all know, TQ was written in 1899, except a few pages, and published after HMGA (as)’s claim to prophethood.  With this notion in mind….

    It is believable that HMGA (as) changed his belief in terms of the verse quoted by Tahir Ijaz. 

    I would ask Ijaz sahib to publish the reference from this sermon by Maulvi Abdul Kareem sahib. 

    Furthermore, per the testimony of HMBMA in Haqiaitaun Nubuwwa.  Maulvi Abdul Kareem was the first Ahmadi to publicly announce the prophethood of HMGA (as).  There was a speech that he gave in early to mid 1901 wherein HMGA (as) was vehemently called a prophet. 

    Later that day (or night), an argument broke out between Syed Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi and Abdul Kareem in front of the house of HMGA (as).  HMGA (as) eventually quoted a quranic verse as he silenced the argument.  That verse said something about not raising your voice in front of a prophet.  Im sure ZA knows it. 

    Thank you


  5. Yes, TQ was published in October 1902 after he allegedly announced his claim of prophethood in November 1901, yet it was published without any indication in the closing pages (the ones written in October 1902) or after the title page to inform readers that almost the whole of the book was based on an earlier, now superseded, claim which will now mislead people.

    Perhaps the following from 1909 will be of interest:

    http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/sadiq-1909.htm  


  6. @ za

    I understand your point.  Also, to some extent I agree with you. 

    Here is my theory, I think that after 1901, many of the followers were unsure of the claim of prophethood of HMGA (as).  They were unsure of the variables.  When this topic finally came to a head in 1914….thats when we begin to see clarity. 

    Furthermore, Braheen e Ahmadiyya vol. 4 continues to be published.  Does that mean that Ahmadis are confused in terms of the Ahmadiyya belief in terms of Esa (as)?  As we know, HMGA (as) wrote that Esa (as) was alive in the heavens.  Why would HMGA (as) continue to publish this after his Tabdili Aqidah in 1891? 

    One more point., in 1904, Muhammad Ali was translating books of HMGA (as) into english that were written before 1901.  I think he quoted one such writing in his book, “How I used the word Nabi…”.   

    Finally, Ahmadiyyat was at a crossroads after the death of HMGA (as).  There became 2 points of view.  The ideas were political.  The LAM wanted to be friendly with Muslims, HMBMA did not!  Coincidentally, beliefs were changed accordingly. 


  7. I don’t know about followers being unsure after 1901 but the Qadiani Jamaat members are unsure now. Yesterday I received an e-mail from an acquaintance in the Qadiani Jamaat who wrote: Mirza Mahmud Ahmad never said that the Promised Messiah was a Rasul. And on this blog Qadiani Jamaat members are trying to prove that the Promised Messiah claimed to be a rasul! My reply to him was: Please ask your Jamaat whether you are correct.

    There is a huge difference between the two situations: (1) the change of his belief about Jesus’ descent from what he stated in Barahin Ahmadiyya vol. 4, and (2) this alleged change of belief by him in 1901.

    In case (1) he merely stated the belief, just once, and only incidentally. He presented no arguments. When he changed his belief (to death of Jesus), he wrote about the new belief in book after book, with full, detailed arguments, and challenged the Ulama to debate on it. When the opponents pointed to his previous belief in BA, he admitted several times that he had been wrong. He admitted more often that he was wrong than the number of times he had expressed the belief that Jesus would descend.

    In case (2) he strongly argued his claim (that he was a muhaddas and non-prophet who fulfilled the coming of the Messiah) in book after book, and speeches and debates in the physical presence of his opponents. Yet there is no evidence that he ever admitted he was wrong in what he stated before 1901, and even the Qadiani Jamaat could only dredge out just one reference from Haqiqat-ul-Wahy (May 1907) as the only place he allegedly mentioned he had been wrong.

    Another important difference is that case (1) represents just one change (“Jesus will descend” to “Jesus is dead”). But case (2) represents a double change, because the pre-1901 position was itself a change. The pre-1901 position (that the coming Messiah cannot be a prophet because prophethood has ended, and he must be a non-prophet) was a complete structure built by Hazrat Mirza sahib himself. When he announced it in 1891, he was bitterly opposed and declared kafir. The alleged change of 1901 brings down his own-created structure. So if that happened, he should have explained the change even more extensively. Remember that in case (1), he is not responsible for creating the first belief but only for the change, but in case (2) he is responsible for creating the first belief and then changing it.

    If case (2) had taken place, it would be not only a change in his claim but the bringing down of a whole structure. For example, to change his claim to that of prophet, he would first have to discard his earlier strongly-expressed belief that no prophet can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

    You say: “One more point., in 1904, Muhammad Ali was translating books of HMGA…” In the April 1904 issue of the Review of Religions he translated a long section from Ainah-i Kamalat-i Islam, published 1893, and the original Urdu was published in the April 1904 issue of the Urdu edition of this magazine. That material is on the very subject of the highest spiritual position a believer can reach and it is written in it:

    “Such a man becomes the inheritor of the blessings granted to the prophets and he is their vicegerent upon earth. What is termed mujiza in the prophets is termed karamat in him, and what is termed ismat (sinlessness) in the prophets is called mahfiziyyat (protection) in him, and what is called nubuwwat (prophethood) in the prophets is designated muhaddasiyyat in him.” (Verbatim reproduction from the English translation in Review of Religions, April 1904, p. 120–121.)

    Lastly, on your observation, “The LAM wanted to be friendly with Muslims, HMBMA did not! Coincidentally, beliefs were changed accordingly”, I make this comment.

    While it would be possible for LAM “politically” to change beliefs in 1914 about Hazrat Mirza sahib’s claims, from where did the LAM conceive, from the very beginning, its mission of the propagation of Islam to the West? The mission of the LAM was never to merely present an alternative and opposition to the Qadiani beliefs about the claims of Hazrat Mirza sahib. It started with a positive programme, which its founders had been working on even before 1914. Maulana Muhammad Ali had been translating the Quran into English for the West and it was nearing completion in 1914, he had already published the Promised Messiah’s book “The Teachings of Islam” (all about Islam only) in 1910, printed in Holland, and Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din was already in England working single-handedly (see this letter by him).

    If all “Mirza” was concerned with was promoting and inflating his own claim, and trying to confuse and deceive people, then from where did LAM founders get the idea of devoting themselves to this unprecedented work and making great sacrifices for it?

    Detractors of Hazrat Mirza sahib should try reading the published letters and reports of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din from England during the years 1912-1914 sent to Maulana Nur-ud-Din and the Jamaat. I have had the great privilege of compiling and translating them for the first time since they originally appeared. See this link.


  8. I am not impressed with the argument that “TQ” (1899) should have been edited in 1902 before release. From 1901 to 1908 the Promised Messiah continued to expound (verbally and in writing) on concepts of nabuwwat on the basis of more revelations he received.  So much so that as early as 1902 we have khutba on the verse regarding ‘Rasul among yourselves’ by a prominent disciple.

    It is interesting that the hottest and most fashionable topic among the Muslims of the 19th and early 20th century in regards to debates with Ahmadis was on death of Jesus.  From the 1920s/30s on it shifted more to Khatme Nabuwwat, such that now that is all we hear.  Death of Jesus is now a dead issue for most non-Ahmadis.   In Promised Messiah’s time, it was important, but also very vital for Promised Messiah of course, as breaker of the cross. Moreover, he considered it a type of shirk for Muslims to believe Jesus was alive.


  9. The Promised Messiah signed off TQ with the date 25 October 1902. In order to declare it a pre-1901 book, the Qadiani Jamaat has argued that only the last two pages were written in October 1902, all the earlier work having been written in 1899 (see the compiler’s introduction in Ruhani Khazain, v. 15, p. 8-11). The difficulty here is that a particular statement they wish to declare as pre-1901 occurs at the bottom of p. 157 (RK, v. 15, p. 481), while the page which the Promised Messiah signed off with 25 October 1902 is page 160, just three pages later. Moreover, the topic he deals with starts on page 154 and continues unbroken till the end.

    So it is inexplicable that when writing the last two pages (159-160), to finish the topic he started on p. 154, he fails to mention that his belief written on p. 157 (about being a non-prophet) has changed.

    Also, he mentions on page 160 that he used to think that Jesus will return but subsequently God declared this to be wrong. It is strange that he mentions this change of belief which happened many years before, but doesn’t mention the change of belief (from non-prophet to prophet) which occurred between his writing page 157 and writing page 160!

    As to Maulvi Abdul Karim calling him ‘messenger’ in 1902, this is the man who published a letter by the Promised Messiah in Al-Hakam, 17th August 1899, in which the Promised Messiah had instructed his followers that the words ‘nabi’ and ‘rasul’ about him are only in a metaphorical sense and must not be taken in the real sense or the sense they bear in the terminology of Islam: “As these words, which are only in a metaphorical sense, cause trouble in Islam, leading to very bad consequences, these terms should not be used in our community’s common talk and everyday language. It should be believed from the bottom of the heart that prophethood has terminated with the Holy Prophet Muhammad”.

    Maulvi Abdul Karim introduced this letter by writing that we must not exaggerate the Promised Messiah’s status, and said: “What did the Christians gain by exaggeratedly praising Jesus, which someone following this path can expect to achieve? … when we are overcome by the emotions of love, we must always keep our tongues and hearts under the control and regulation of the true Shariah.”

    So if he called him ‘rasul’ in 1902, we must take this usage in the sense explained in this letter which, as Maulvi Abdul Karim tells us, he himself obtained from the Promised Messiah before it was posted, in order to publish it for the benefit of all the followers.


  10. @T Ijaz:
    “From the 1920s/30s on it shifted more to Khatme Nabuwwat, such that now that is all we hear.”

    If Qadianis had not ignited a new issue of Continuation of Nabuwwat, ALL Muslims of the world especially Pakistani Muslims had taken mission of HMGA to unimaginable success. It’s so sad 100 years has been wasted, just because of nonsense belief ‘continuation of prophethood’ as propaghated by Qadianis.

    Maulana Abdul Manan Omar sahib (son of Maulana Noor-ud-Din sahib) use to say:
    “I give credit of all the misinformation, and misunderstanding among Muslims about Hazrat Massiah Mauood, and their opposition to none other than Mira Mahmud Ahmad (Qadiani Khalifa 2)”. In last year of his life, he said with tears in his eyes, “because of this [Mirza Mahmud Ahmad] Kumbakhat (wretched) one century is wasted”.


  11. @ Za

    Your scholarship is appreciated.  Once again: 
    How many times was Braheen e Ahmadiyya  vol. 4 published after 1891? 
    How many times has it been published since then? 
    Surely you dont think that those WERENT the beliefs of HMGA (as) on the second or third publishing? 

    What if someone reads RK and reads that page and then asks an Ahmadi if HMGA (as) re-changed his belief in terms of Esa (as)? 

    Do you see the point? 

    Furthermore, Muhammad Ali was a paid employee of the Sadr Anjuman.  The work that he did as an employee of theirs should have remained in Qadian.  He took a type-writer as well.  He appeared to be very well off after his Qurans started selling worldwide.  Do you have register on how many were sold from 1917 to 1930?  Wasnt that one of the only english Qurans available in America and England for quite some time? 


  12. The contrast between TQ and BA (v. 4) is this. When BA, v. 4, was first published, it represented the beliefs of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad at that time when he sent it for publication. When TQ was first published, which he sent for publication in October 1902, it is alleged he expressed in it a claim which he had changed a year previously and which was no longer valid at the very time he was signing off this book for publication.

    When BA was later re-published, it was a commonly known, undisputed fact that he believed Jesus to have died. Anyone with even the least knowledge about Hazrat Mirza was aware of this. Moreover, the editions of BA published by Qadiani and Lahori Jamaats describe him on the cover page as “Promised Messiah”, thus giving the current belief. Furthermore, in RK volume 1, which consists of BA, v. 1 to 4, it is explained by the compiler by giving quotations from later books of Hazrat Mirza sahib that he gave up the belief that Jesus would descend. This is what someone reading RK would read in that very volume.

    As to your allegations against Maulana Muhammad Ali, what relevance have these to the point under discussion? For example, did Hazrat Mirza sahib stick a piece of paper under the type-writer saying “I changed my claim to prophet in 1901”, and Maulana Muhammad Ali took away the type-writer with him with this evidence?

    Your allegations have been answered repeatedly. See his biography, A Mighty Striving, pages 64-68 and 149-153. See also the Urdu book Mir’at-ul-Ikhtilaf, pages 56-61.

    If allegations against the conduct of Maulana Muhammad Ali are relevant to this discussion, then the question arises: Are allegations against the behaviour of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also relevant to this discussion? I understand from your posts of some time ago that you are carrying out an impartial, objective study of Ahmadiyya beliefs. Please exercise these qualities in this particular context.


  13. @
    I agree with you ZA.  I should probably avoid this discussion. 
    Thank you for your responses. 


  14. @ ZA

    My final thoughts on this subject would be:

    Before RK was serialised or created, how many times was BA vol. 4 re-published?? 

    And yes…HMGA (as) made a huge mistake by not understanding his status among the prophets circa 1880.  These were not merely Sufi concepts that he expounded on.  However, from 1891 to 1901 he did present them as Sufi concepts.

    I have read the ROR quite intensely.  From 1908 to 1914 I get no other impression than the notion that HMGA (as) is a prophet.  I also get the impression that there was a gray area in this respect.

    Finally, in the 1940’s Muhammad Ali refers to his writings of 1904 in the ROR as he defends his stance on prophethood.  However he doesnt mention that he was simply translating a book of HMGA (As).  However he presented it as his own unique writings.  This point shocked me. 


  15. An addict comes back again and again after stopping. The temptation is too strong!

    BA, v. 1-4, was published a number of times before the RK compilation.

    “These were not merely Sufi concepts that he expounded on. However, from 1891 to 1901 he did present them as Sufi concepts.”

    You mean they were not Sufi concepts but Hazrat Mirza sahib falsely presented them as sufi concepts between 1891 and 1901. And “he made a huge mistake”. Well, he is your prophet whom you are bestowing with the title “(as)”! Reconcile that yourself!

    “From 1908 to 1914 I get no other impression than the notion that HMGA (as) is a prophet.”

    — Try reading Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din’s speech to the Allahabad convention in January 1911, in Review of Religions, February 1911.

    “This point shocked me.”

    Maulana Muhammad Ali wasn’t presenting those quotations for their scholarliness, so that he could get credit for what Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote. He was presenting them to show that he himself was including material in ROR in which the finality of prophethood was clearly mentioned. If these had been the Maulana’s own words, you would have raised the objection that it was his own belief and that Hazrat Mirza, at that time, was expressing a different belief! The fact that they are Hazrat Mirza sahib’s own words from 1893 about prophethood shows that his earlier books weren’t regarded as abrogated.

    Then there is the matter of the change in the date of change of claim. In January 1915 it was set at October 1902, and I quote:

    “… until the publication of Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, which began in August 1899 and ended on 25 October 1902, his belief was that… Thus it is absolutely unallowable to use any writing before 1902”.

    In March 1915 this was amended: “It is proved that the references dating prior to the year 1901 in which he has denied being a prophet, are now abrogated and it is an error to use them as evidence.”

    If there had been any change in claim, the date of it would have been long known, not that the proposers of this notion would be changing their own suggested date!


  16. @ ZA

    My point is that BA vol. 4 was published many times over before the RK edition was released with the proper footnotes.  Furthermore, Noorudin and Maulwi Abdul Kareem believed that Esa (as) died before they had ever even heard of the Mujadid and his BA.  Noorudin had met HMGA (as) before BA vol. 4 was published.  However, he asked to be his disciple.  There werent any issues there. 

    As you know..im quite inquisitive.  I inquired about the religion I was born into.  My biggest obstacle was the split.  Thats where I started reading. 

    Even Einstein said that his “steady-state” theory was the biggest blunder of his career.  HMGA (as) erred similarily.  Some Ahmadis, raised the status of HMGA (as) to that of a law-bearing prophet.  You see, 1908 to 1914 was a period of uncertainty.  The young religion of Ahmadiyyat was at a crossroads.  The remaining leaders had to choose a path for the future. 

    One more point.  Syed Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi appeared to be the most confused follower of HMGA (as) of all time.  He initially sided with HMBMA, however, he had read his books and everything.  Then, he decided to switch sides as if he didnt understand a grain of Islamic theory in terms of prophethood.  He was also a paid employee of the Sadr Anjuman.  

    Maulana Muhammad Ali presented those writings in ROR of 1904 as if they were his.  He never mentioned that he was merely translating a book of HMGA (as).  Read his book entitled, “How I used the word prophet….”. 

    I can produce and endless supply of quotations from the ROR from 1908 that give the reader no other impression than that HMGA (as) is a prophet of some sort, not just a muhaddas.  And remember….the ROR was sent to almost every part of the British Empire, more specifically Africa.  In fact, many Ahmadis converted because of this newspaper. 

    In QF, HMBMA made an error.  Simple and plain.  He knew that there was a change in terms of prophethood.  He began probing it.  

    HMGA (as), began writing Siraj Munir before 1891, he didnt edit it when it was finally published in 1897.  I havent read that book.  However, its a wonderful example.   


  17. Here is one such reference that appeared in the ROR of April 1913:

    In an article entitled, “Ahmad as a Prophet”, which in itself gives the global readership the impression that HMGA (as) is a prophet, and not in the Sufi sense of the word. 

    “From his revelations published in his Will our minds travelled to his other revelations and visions which also spoke of his approaching death.  These visions and revelations not only announced the sad catastrophe that was about to put an end to the career of the prophet, but also gave undreamt of particulars and details.”

    http://www.aaiil.org/text/articles/reviewofreligions/1913/reviewreligionsenglish_191304.pdf

    Page 153


  18. Here is another reference from the same article:

    “Ahmad was no exception to the general law which applied to all the great prophets of God” Page 155

    There are countless other references that I had found when I was studying the split.  These 2 should be enough.  It must be noted that Sher Ali was the editor in this era.  Muhammad Ali was busy translating the Quran.  However, in those days everyone read newspapers profusely.  If there were errors on Sher Ali’s part, Muhammad Ali would have pointed it out. 

    I am sure that when Muhammad Ali travelled to Dalhousie in 1909 to begin his paid-work, he was recieving all of the Ahmadiyya Newspapers regularly.   The asterisks that Muhammad Ali added in 1914 appear to have been late. 


  19. Sorry to blow up your board like this….However, I consider myself an authority on the split.  I have read endlessly about it.  I even wavered on both sides of the equation, as you know very well. 

    Here is a reference from July 1911:

    In an article entitled, “The present Condition of Christendom calls for a prophet”

    Page 288

    “Who can then breathe life into this dead world of ours?  Who can bring back to this earth the faith that has departed from it?  The mere preaching of a book will not do.  None but a prophet can regenerate this earth.  Prophets have breathed life into dead humanity in the past and if the world is to be regenerated now, it must be regenerated by a prophet.  That prophet has already appeared.  It was Ahmad of Qadian……….”

    On page 290

    “In short, the present condition of Christendom called for a prophet.  The world was so sunk in error and vice that none but a prophet could regerate it.  It has even been a law of God to raise a prophet when vice and error have corrupted the world and it was in accordance with that law that He raised Ahmad in the present ages.  The very fact that the present age sorely needed a prophet is an evidence of his truth.  God spoke to him as He spoke to…………..”

    On page 291

    “…so God raised a prophet in this age…..”

    The final paragraph of this article says:

    “lastly Muhammad….” 

    In this sentence the author is referring to Muhammad as the LAST prophet, however in the preceding paragraphs he mentions HMGA (as) as a prophet as well.  In my research, I have come to learn that this was common “phraseology” in Ahmadiyya literature after 1901.  They would continue to list Muhammad (saw) as the LAST, however, HMGA (as) was also a prophet. 

    ^this is why I wrote earlier that there was uncertainty from 1908 to 1914 in terms of the exact nature of the prophethood of HMGA (as). 


  20. This is the person who said above: “I agree with you ZA. I should probably avoid this discussion.” But now he has remembered that: “However, I consider myself an authority on the split.” We do get posters on this blog, each claiming to be the greatest authority against our beliefs.

    I respond below to the above four separate comments from him in order.

    I have already shown that re-publication of BA, v. 1-4, is no comparison for TQ, which he was actually completing the writing of in October 1902 by his own hand, and only three pages earlier he had expressed the claim which was allegedly already cancelled a year ago. What Maulana Nur-ud-Din or Maulvi Abdul Karim believed about the death of Jesus before BA, v. 4, (assuming your statement is correct) is of no significance, since death of Jesus wasn’t an issue relating to HMGA’s claim at the time. Becoming prophet from non-prophet is such an issue.

    Bashir: “You see, 1908 to 1914 was a period of uncertainty.”

    The “uncertainty” has continued in the Qadiani Jamaat till now! In 1914 they believed that HMGA fulfilled Jesus’s prophecy of the coming Ahmad, and challenged all Muslim ulama about this, then they started withdrawing this belief (see link). They declared all other Muslims as “kafir”, “outside the pale of Islam”, “pukkay kafir”, and retreated from this. But of course Bashir can’t see this “uncertainty”.

    Bashir: “Syed Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi appeared to be the most confused follower… decided to switch sides…”.

    He decided to switch sides when the Qadiani leadership told him to change his beliefs because Lahoris were publishing his earlier writings which, of course, he still held to.

    But Bashir’s craftiness and bias is proved by the fact that he won’t describe Mufti Muhammad Sadiq as confused about prophethood. Why? Because M.M. Sadiq was a leading Qadiani, and Bashir has to defend Qadianis, whether he himself is a Qadiani or is virulently anti-Ahmadiyya. See these links about what M.M. Sadiq was writing as editor of Badr in 1909 and 1910.

    If Syed M. Ahsan was so confused, why did HMGA ask him to publish an article to say that he had not claimed prophethood in “Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala”? And the editor of Al-Hakam (obviously not to be criticised by Bashir because he was a leading Qadiani) prefixed to it the following note:

    “Below we reproduce an invaluable letter by Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha which, although written by him as a reply to a postcard from Muhammad Yusuf of Amritsar, is in fact a fine exposition of that pamphlet which Hazrat Aqdas [Hazrat Mirza] published under the title Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala. The points of truth and knowledge contained in this letter need no explanation or advertisement from us — the name ‘scholar of Amroha’ is sufficient. But we should say that in this letter the scholarly gentleman is speaking with the support of the Holy Spirit. … Here is that blessed letter, full of knowledge.”

    Bashir: “In QF, HMBMA made an error. Simple and plain. He knew that there was a change in terms of prophethood. He began probing it.”

    Strange, that the date and writings in which he first claimed to be mujaddid were known to all, the date and writings in which he first claimed to be Promised Messiah were know to all, but the so-called Khalifa appointed by God had to start probing in 1915 when he claimed to be a prophet.

    Bashir: “HMGA (as), began writing Siraj Munir before 1891, he didnt edit it when it was finally published in 1897. I havent read that book. However, its a wonderful example.”

    You haven’t read it, so what is the source of your information that it was written before 1891? Please do tell us (unless, of course, you are bound to protect your source).

    Bashir’s quotes from the ROR show his technique of propaganda. First, he basically says he will ignore as of no value any reference from ROR which supports our view. This is why he says “The asterisks that Muhammad Ali added in 1914 appear to have been late” and that “They would continue to list Muhammad (saw) as the LAST, however, HMGA (as) was also a prophet”. So he says he gives no weight to statements that the Holy Prophet was the last prophet occurring in the same place where the word ‘prophet’ is used for HMGA. What gives him that right?

    Secondly, he conceals what doesn’t suit him. In the April 1913 article “Ahmad as a prophet” it is clearly stated in the footnote to the heading on p. 148: “… we intend to speak of the prophecies of Ahmad…” and the whole article is about prophecies made by him. So “prophet” means one who makes prophecies. And what about the advice in the first two pages of this article to Muslims to propagate Islam, send missionaries among non-Muslims, and correct Christian misrepresentations? What does that show about the writer’s views?

    He, of course, doesn’t quote the “asterisks by Muhammad Ali”, which are as follows in the February 1914 issue: “The word prophet is used here not in the strict terminology of the Muslim Law, the holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, being the last of the prophets in that sense, but in the broad sense of one endowed with the gift of prophecy by Divine inspiration, a gift which is promised to every true Muslim by the holy Quran, and one which was possessed in an eminent degree by the late Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian.”

    Bashir says this is “late”. If it had been in an earlier issue, Bashir would have said that this explanation was given early and doesn’t cover the later installments where ‘prophet’ is used in the real sense!

    Regarding his quotes from the July 1911 issue, I provide here a scanned image of the text starting from the middle of p. 290 and going over to p. 291, where I draw attention to certain words by red lines. It says that HMGA “offered himself as an example” of what can be attained by following the Holy Quran and the religion of the Holy Prophet, and that everyone should follow that religion. It then says that he was a prophet because he published hundreds of prophecies, inspired by God. So ‘prophet’ is being used as meaning one who publishes prophecies.

    Bashir, while quoting from the very same pages, failed to mention this.

    Another propaganda technique of Bashir is to work into his words certain allegations that are not relevant even as allegations, on the principle that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it, and if you throw filth some of it will attach even to innocent persons. He says:

    “I am sure that when Muhammad Ali travelled to Dalhousie in 1909 to begin his paid-work, …”

    (The self-styled authority has got his fact wrong here.) Also about Syed Muhammad Ahsan sahib he says: “He was also a paid employee of the Sadr Anjuman.”

    But he doesn’t dare mention that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in 1914 directed that all donations should be sent to him personally.

    Bashir claims to be an authority, and yet when someone obviously spoon-fed him that Siraj Munir was written before 1891, he didn’t even bother to read the book, and declared it to be a “wonderful example”. Run back to them and ask!


  21. Excuse me if I am a bit rusty.  My research work on the split is from 3 years ago.  Some references I only remember off of memory. 
    1.      I was referring to the characters of Maulana Muhammad Ali and HMBMA.  I have decided to not question them respectively.  However, other Ahmadis who flip-flopped are up for debate.  Another famous “super-confused” Ahmadi was Mauwlvi Ghulam Hasan Khan, who abandoned the LAM just a year before his death and took the Bait of HMBMA.  And what about the father of Bashir Misri?  And what about the sons of Noorudin?  Did they not understand the ins and outs of religion by the age of 40. 
    2.      HMBMA was only 25 years old in 1914.  Its not like he was a seasoned religion veteran in his mid-30’s or early 40’s.  He began probing the prophethood of HMGA (As) when he became khalifa. 
    HMGA (as) would publish his books as-is.  He never added any additional notes to BA vol. 4.  Whether BA vol. 4 compares with TQ is not the question.  The point is that the BA vol. 4 continued to be re-published without any footnotes.  Why didn’t HMGA (as) add them?  Noorudin didn’t either.  The same answer is realized for the TQ situation.  I also think that the supplement/appendix of HW was simply older writings of HMGA (as) that were being published in a hurry.  Remember, “Jesus in India” wasn’t published by HMGA (as) nor was BA vol. 5. 
    I thought I had read somewhere that Noorudin and Maulwi Abdul Kareem followed Sir Syed before they met HMGA (as).  We all know that Sir Syed created the swoon theory and also defined mutawafeeka as death.  We do know that Noorudin believed that Esa (as) was fathered before he met HMGA (as) as did Sir Syed. 
    Why are you changing the subject to Ismuhu Ahmad or Takfeer.  Can we stay on track here? 
    The exact reason why the Amrohi switched sides is uncertain.  However, he claimed to have read QF and HN (if im not mistaken) and didn’t have any problems with them.  Then, all of a sudden he did.  And this was not a young man like me or HMBMA, we caaaan make mistakes.  But this would have been a huge blunder.  Maybe he was vacillating?
    I told you before that 1908 to 19134 was a period of uncertainty, that applies for Mufti Muhammad Sadiq as well. 
    Again, after EGKI, the Amrohi argued with the same rhetoric as all Ahmadi newspapers from 1901 to 1914.  That is:  Muhammad (saw) is the final prophet, however, HMGA (as) is also a prophet.  After HN, the uncertainty was gone. 
    Yes, there was one subject remaining that obviously needed clarity.  That was prophethood and the future “political-direction” of the movement.  Later on, HMBMA and Muhammad Ali were able to send missions openly and freely to all parts of the British Empire.  While no other Islamic group had such a liberty. 
    3-4 years ago I had read a footnote somewhere that HMGA (as) was working on Siraj Munir.  It was from some book of the 1889 era.  I was surprised to see it.  On our website, alislam.org, there is a book which briefly touches on all of the books of HMGA (as).  They have confirmed that Siraj Munir was began in 1888.  See http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Hidden-Treasures-of-Islam.pdf, PAGE 186.  It seems like the pupil has taught the teacher. 
                How am I ignoring anything?  IMHO, Muhammad Ali purposely added the asterisks because he knew that the readership thought of HMGA (as) as a prophet.  Why didn’t he add the asterisks in all of the writings of HMGA (as)?  My research gives me the right to form conclusions based on facts. 
    Your notion that the word prophet was only used in a limited sense is totally absurd.  Remember the readership of this magazine stretched from Africa to Indonesia.  A writer should have been very careful when calling someone a prophet who was not.  Was the readership Sufis only? 
    Not one member of the LAM has received the blessings that HMGA (as) promised. If so, show me one member of the LAM who is ummati and nabi even in a metaphorical sense. 
    So was he not a prophet because of following Muhammad?  Was he not a prophet in the Sufi sense of the word?  I regret to inform you that your arguments haven’t worked out to well historically.  90% of the movement shunned Muhammad Ali and his ideas.  However, the world appreciated his Quran for which the LAM got rich. 
    I was simply mentioning that Muhammad Ali was given every comfort by Noorudin as he began a task that he was ordered to perform.  These Qurans were going to be the #1 tool of tabligh for the Ahmadiyya movement. 
    What fact is wrong about the Amrohi?  You failed to give an example. 
    Nobody told me that Siraj Munir was published pre-1891.  I read that myself.  I even provided a link in the above.  There is no one who has helped me with any of my research work except Zahid Aziz and Tahir Ijaz.  Can we please keep this discussion civil? 
    Your brother in Ahmadiyyat. 


  22. Admin Note: The following post by Ikram was sent before I had posted Bashir’s latest comment (see above).


    What Bashir is telling us is that his beliefs are inelegant to begin with. Inherently his beliefs are ego-dystonic i.e. the reality he sees is incompatible with his inner sense of self. This creates a sense of anxiety for him. In order to validate the subjective nature of his “truth,” he reads while slicing and dicing writings of HMGA. Any straw of hope of non-contextual read of “prophet” is a life saver as it becomes a means for his beliefs to be ego-syntonic, thus reducing his anxieties. But, in the process he inevitably presents to the world a confused and inelegant HMGA. Last time I checked, HMGA was not devoid of faculty of verbal speech. How many speeches can one quote of his claiming himself to be a prophet of the likes of Muhammad or Moses? Factually, we hear the opposite in Jamia Masjid Dehli by his own mouth. Why wasn’t HMGA a full fledged “prophet” during his own lifetime? Because he was not. Who is more confused ? Bashir or HMGA?
     
    No body will remember Bashir, but chances are that a person of a high stature like HMGA will be perceived in a distorted image. Bashir is not the first. There is a long chain of Qadiani institutions with its founder Khalifa-II onwards who did the same but with one difference. The Qadiani Khalifas have a personal secondary gain from such “prophethood” of HMGA. The foot soldiers like Bashir are just canon fodder who are satisfied to be sacrificial lambs on the altars of such dogmas. So it happened. In Pakistan they had and continue to literally sacrifice themselves. Internationally they have isolated themselves from rest of the Ummah. Internally they continue to undergo an ever increasing taxation by their Jamaat. The rank and file of Qadianis do this for the sake to make their delusional dogmas ego-syntonic. Khalifas know mind games and they pry on such zealots – Mind can be a terrible thing.
     
    If for once Bashir starts his reading of HMGA to seek contextual and objective truth, he will find a very elegant HMGA who is no challenge to the seal and finality of prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) and acceptable to Ummah at large. With such an approach, there is no element of ego-dystonia to begin with and the question of anxiety does not even arise. It is a natural bliss – Mind can be such a beautiful thing.
     
    Note – usage of “Bashir” is just a figure of speech for an average Qadiani member.
     
     


  23. From writings of “Bashir”, i am convinced he is the SAME person who writes on ahmedi.org under “rationalist”. Rationalist has repeatedly written that he was born in Qadiani family, but has converted to Islam and is now a Muslim. He praises Khatam-e-Nabuwat-Academy-UK spokesman Akbar Chaudhry and others like Ahmad Karim Shaikh and Shahid Kamal. His heros also include ‘Skunk’.
    Bashir aka “rationalist” in order to “destroy” Lahore Ahmadiyya Mission with ultimate aim of “destroying” HMGA, uses Qadiani arguments against LAM.


  24. Bashir wrote above: “Later on, HMBMA and Muhammad Ali were able to send missions openly and freely to all parts of the British Empire. While no other Islamic group had such a liberty.”

    He could only have got this fake information from the anti-Ahmadiyya zealots.

    Muslim groups were openly operating in England during the time of HMGA himself, and before Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din came to England. This is not only proved from general history, but in the Review of Religions itself (1902-1914) there were reports from such converts about Islamic work in England, and they were also being sent Islamic literature from Qadian. See this link and the comment by Maulana Muhammad Ali supporting the converts’ work in England in which he writes: “The cause of Islam in England should be the cause of every Muhammadan.”

    Yes, the magazine which allegedly preached that “Ahmad is a prophet” who has now arisen, was supporting the work of propagation of Islam done by converts to Islam in England who had no connection with the “new prophet”.

    If no other Islamic group had liberty, how did the Begum of Bhopal manage to fund the building of the Mosque at Woking, completed in 1889?

    The building of a mosque in London itself was proposed in early 1900s. There is an article in ROR, Sept. 1912 entitled “A Mosque in London”, reprinted from a journal in England. There is an article in ROR July 1912 by an English convert (i.e. not an Ahmadi) entitled “Islam in England”.

    When Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din went to England in September 1912, from day one he was working with the Muslims there (Indian Muslims living there, diplomats, business men, scholars, English converts).

    When he had the Woking Mosque handed over from Leitner’s son to a trust, it was with the help of leading Muslim figures, and the first trustees were: Syed Ameer Ali and Mirza Sir Abbas Ali Baig (but no Ahmadi was trustee). See also here about Pickthall’s asscoiation with the Woking Mission.

    It is simply false propaganda, swallowed by Bashir, that  “no other Islamic group had such a liberty”, when the fact is that other Muslims were the very ones who had the liberty.


  25. January 1st, 2012 at 3:04 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Bashir wrote above: “I also think that the supplement/appendix of HW was simply older writings of HMGA (as) that were being published in a hurry.”

    He claims this because Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote in this supplement to Haqiqat-ul-Wahy that prophethood had been terminated after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and he himself had been called a prophet by Allah “by way of metaphor, not by way of reality”. Bashir wants to show this to be an “old” statement, no longer applicable in 1907 when HW was published.

    Looking through that Arabic supplement in HW, I came across the following lines:

    RK, v. 22, p. 684

    The meaning is:

    “As regards all the radiant signs and powerful arguments which Allah revealed to me, these were not for me, but they were for proving the truth of Islam. I am nothing but one of the servants.” (Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 22, p. 684).

    Any opponent of HMGA having the least sense of fairness will hang his head in shame at reading these beautiful words.


  26. The allegations raised against me by Rashid are totally absurd and false!!!  I want an apology!!!!  I have no idea why I am being targeted as such.  I asked some questions on this respectable blog and have been accused of Atheism and religious extremism. 

    I fail to understand the point of Ikrams post.  I think psychologicalls the LAM members are the most destroyed.  They have been taught that the Messiah came into this world and message was destroyed.  And this is their religon.  If anyone needs cessation its LAM members.  There are only 6 that write here and a total global membership of possible less than 10,000 and dying fast.  

    We were talking about books getting published late and super-confused Ahmadis.  How did it turn into charachter assasination?  Im not asking anyone to follow my religion.  

    As we all know, HMGA (as) misinterpretted many things.  The Abdullah Athim prophecy is another example, so is the Muhammadi Begum saga.  HMGA (as) interpretted his revelations a certain way and did make mistakes along the way.  The LAM agrees with this concept.  Punishment was averted in the case of both of the above, Athim’s repentance was short lived.  Piggot is another example.  

    My point about propogation is as such.  IMHO, the ROR is connected with the prophethood of HMGA (as).  Both were started roughly the same time.  What other Islamic missionary group was given liberty to send missionaries throughout the British Empire?  The ROR always called HMGA (as) a prophet.  The Muslim converts of England didnt follow Ahmadiyyat.  They didnt even care for it.  KK was converting people to Islam, not Ahmadiyyat.  His famous converts of 1913 didnt even care who HMGA (as) was.  Hence, KK was of the same opinion.    Later events proved it as true. 


  27. @Bashir:
    “The allegations raised against me by Rashid are totally absurd and false!!! I want an apology!!!!”

    Bashir, i will tender apology if you state under oath: “I say keeping Allah SWT as my witness, with invition of his curse and destruction on myself and my family, that i am NOT the one who writes on ahmedi.org under user name ‘rationalist'”!!    


  28. If Bashir is protesting that he is not Rationalist, then Rationalist will also not like it that he is being considered the same as Bashir. If both of them post something about their background and identity then it will establish that they are different persons.

    Regarding Bashir Shah, he has told us that he was born in Pakistan in 1979 in a Qadiani Jamaat family, he moved to US in 1980 and lives in California. His father did some work for the Qadiani Jamaat in Peshawar in 1964.

    His views about Islam and the Holy Prophet Muhammad are publicly known. He has written that the views of anti-Islamic orientalists such as Sir William Muir about Islam are correct; and he has argued with our contributors on this blog about this. When he was asked by our contributors about his beliefs on Islam, he replied that Islam was a violent religion in the same manner as the UK and USA spread their domination around the world violently by killing vast numbers of innocent people. He said the Quran is poorly arranged, the Muslim society of the Holy Prophet and early times was a typical barbaric society of the time. He said that anyone who defamed the Holy Prophet did not live to tell about it. Leaving Islam at that time was like quitting religion in a barbaric society and so the punishment was death.

    Bashir criticised the action of the Holy Prophet at Tabuk as follows:

    “Why did the HP even ask for jizyah? Why didnt he deliver the message and go home? The people of Tabuk didnt need the protection of the HP, nor did they ask for it. If someone shows up to you doorstep with 1000 warriors, what would you do? Also, The HP accepted jizyah before allah even authorized its acceptance.”

    Bashir told us that in his opinion the khilafat after the Holy Prophet didn’t work, and that the model of leadership in the USA was a better way than the khilafat of the four khalifas after the Holy Prophet.

    No wonder, then, that Bashir is against the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.


  29. You people are sick and twisted.  This is my final post here.  Here is the truth, the Lahoris are and have always been the biggest Anti-Ahmadiyya group in the history of Ahmadiyyat.  Read the history.  In 1914, there was a huge squabble between the 2 groups wherein the errors of HMGA (as) were recorded and critisized.  Muhammad Ali took off with the most prized possession, i.e. an official english Quran.  There was even a possible court case on this matter (see KK). 

    I proved that Muhammad Ali lied when tried to explain his writings in terms of the prophethood of HMGA (As).  He purposely, willfully and knowingly referred to a book (urdu 1893-4) of HMGA (as) in 1904 as his own.  He gave the reader an impression that he himself had written this article on Ahmadiyyat.  He wrote, “my writings” (see online edition at aaiil.org).  After the ROR became available a few years ago, I doublechecked the reference and was astonished to see that it was written by HMGA (as) before 1901 and Muhammad Ali simply translated it into english as was his job description.  He was simply performing a task that was assigned to his department.  In the same era, he ran into debt and HMGA (as) used the funds from the community to cover this debt.  And this was before employee rights were realized in the industrial revolution. 

    Then, I re-analyzed the analogy that HMGA (as) had explained in HW.  He wrote that his confusion with prophethood was the same with his title of Esa (as) circa 1880-1885 era.  He was actually Esa (as) and an ummati nabi circa 1879, but he didnt understand it properly. 

    This blog consists of old men whose children and grandchildren have run away from Ahmadiyyat and HMGA (as).  And they accused me of leaving Ahmadiyyat and joining the worst creatures on the earth??  Unbelievable I tell ya….


  30. January 3rd, 2012 at 8:05 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    In addition to his delightful comments about us as above, Bashir has also e-mailed me directly. Here is the complete text of his e-mail:

    I cant believe that you have associated me with those people. I nailed the LAM. I figured out that Muhammad Ali did it all for the money. And you accused me of what????

    You dirty old man. Are any of your grandchildren still Ahmadi????

    Being abused in this way is just a hazard of our work. Bashir’s mentality is now more openly revealed than ever. Why should we worry about his false charges and abuse against us, when he did not spare Islam and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s.l.m.)?


  31. @Bashir,

    Instead of stating under oath that you’re not the SAME person who writes under user name ‘rationalist’ on ahmedi.org and making me tender you my apology, you adopted method of a LOSING GAMBLER. Smelling your obvious FRAUD getting caught, you toppled the poker table.

    Bashir, beside lying, you don’t even have sportsman spirit!!     


  32. I don’t believe Bashir has any user name ‘rationalist’, but he is a rationalist and tenacious researcher. I exchanged hundreds of emails with him couple years back,  regarding nabuwwat of the promised messiah.  He thoroughly scrutinized arguments presented by both sides, looking for clarity, which required thorough, well researched answers. I was subject to a lot of grilling by him in that search for clarity.

     Argumentum ad hominem as displayed in some of the posts against him are not fruitful


  33. January 5th, 2012 at 6:42 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Bashir has expressed the following views in these comments, that as regards whether Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a prophet:

    “You see, 1908 to 1914 was a period of uncertainty.”

    “I think that after 1901, many of the followers were unsure of the claim of prophethood of HMGA (as).”

    “I told you before that 1908 to 1914 was a period of uncertainty, that applies for Mufti Muhammad Sadiq as well.”

    Does the Qadiani Jamaat accept this conclusion? As far as I know, its stand is that all leading Ahmadis and spokesmen after 1901, and most definitely during 1908-1914, were absolutely clear on this issue and did believe without doubt that he was a prophet.

    Perhaps Dr T. Ijaz could let us know if Bashir is a member of his Jamaat.

    Also, would he (or any other member of the Qadiani Jamaat) care to comment on my post containing a polite question addressed to them?

    It is a simple question of fact that I posed there.


  34. I have been writing on internet for many years now that Qadianis and anti-HMGA people are BED-FELLOWS. They both need each other to survive. They both hate LAM as they are worried for their going out of business, if people get chance to look at HMGA the way LAM is presenting him.

    T. Ijaz and Bashir’s posts have once again supported my proposition. 


  35. January 7th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    @Bashir,

    “What other Islamic missionary group was given liberty to send missionaries throughout the British Empire?”  Can you please name those Islamic groups which sought permission to send missionaries throughout Br Empire and were declined permission?


  36. January 7th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    The world-famous Nadwat-ul-Ulama of Lucknow, India, founded 1891 for training Ulama, was openly supported by the British government of India. See this link.

    They weren’t only given “liberty” to produce Ulama, they were given land and money by the British government, and the British governor personally laid the foundation stone of the school building. And Nadwah produced a lot of anti-Ahmadiyya ulama such as the famous Abul Hasan Ali Nadawi.

    If that was India, then in London during British rule of India, Muslims were given land as a gift by the British government in 1940 to build a mosque, where today stands the Central London Mosque. See this link.

    Another interesting point here is that Bashir’s allegation was directed against both Qadianis and Lahoris, since he wrote: “Later on, HMBMA and Muhammad Ali were able to send missions openly and freely to all parts of the British Empire. While no other Islamic group had such a liberty.”

    We Lahoris have responded to his allegation in our above posts. What answer do Dr T. Ijaz and the Qadiani Jamaat have to his allegation? Or perhaps he is too much of a “tenacious researcher” for them to respond to!


  37. November 18th, 2016 at 10:35 am
    From Madame Hildegard:

    Re. Piggot, I read on a detractors' board that the issue is explained in Mujaddid-e-Azam Vol. 2 however this is not available in English.

    Vol. 1 does an impressive job in explaining the Mohammadi Begum episode. 

    I was wondering about the words, "the death of mr pigott within my life-time shall be another sign of my truth."

    Is this covered in Vol. 2?

    Is 'death' here metaphorical? 

    Thanks.


  38. Volume 2 of Mujaddid-i Azam has now been translated into English and will be published soon.

    Regarding Pigott, a news appeared in the British press earlier this month. Please read it at this link to the Daily Mail, London.

    As you will read, his whole sect folded up completely.

    The following pasage from this news item struck me (bolding is mine):

    "The sale of the London church in 2010, and uncertainty over who should be given the £1m proceeds of sale, that has sparked the court case.

    When the trust deed was drawn up, no-one envisaged a time when the sect and its members would have long passed away.

    Trustees who currently hold the £1million have now turned to the High Court for help, asking Judge Andrew Simmonds QC to solve the impasse."


  39. November 18th, 2016 at 10:08 pm
    From Madame Hildegard:

    Probably the only interesting article I have ever read from the Daily Mail. 

    The article also states: 'All the community members are now long since deceased and gone and there are no other descendants.'

    Certainly Pigott's creed has been effaced whereas the teachings of HMGA continue to impact positively throughout the world. The OED definition of 'lifetime' includes the meaning: 'the duration of a thing's existence or usefulness.'

    I wish his granddaughters well. 

    Thanks again.


  40. November 20th, 2016 at 1:30 am
    From Madame Hildegard:

    Just wanted to add that the explanation regarding the Muhammadi Begum affair can be applied to the Piggot episode as well.

    On p.260 of Mujaddid-i-Azam (English version) HMGA is quoted as saying:

    Even if we assume for the sake of argument that this is what I implied, this implication would be my interpretation and not the word of God. My word and the Word of God are not the same. I am human and it is possible for me to err in interpretation (Hujat-ullah, p.10)

    and

    I do not consider my interpretations to be error-free. To prove me culpable, my accusers should present one of my revelations.

    In the case of Piggot, HMGA saw "some books on which was written three times: 'Holy, Holy, Holy' followed by a revelation:

    Allah is severe in retribution. They are not acting righteously.

    The source for this information is quoted by the detractors as 'Badr Vol. I Nos. 5 and 6, Nov.8 and Dec. 5, 1902 p. 4'

    The revelation itself certainly came to pass.


Leave a Reply