The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog


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

— latest, 21 July 2014: Standards Adhered to in Interpretation of Quran from within Quran


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


December 13th, 2010

Additional, optional questions on Iqbal

There are two additional questions on this subject which Mr Akbar Chaudhry may, if he wishes, opt to answer, although they don’t relate to anything he said in his talk. I apologise for posting these separately.

In his booklet against the Ahmadiyya Movement entitled Islam and Ahmadism, published 1936, Iqbal writes as a complaint:

“Russia offered tolerance to Babism and allowed the Babis to open their first missionary in Ishqabad. England showed Ahmadis the same tolerance in allowing them to open their first missionary centre in Woking.”

Question: If the Woking Mission was allowed to be set up because Ahmadis were pro-British agents, why did Iqbal support the work of the Woking mission, and even came to the annual conference of the Lahore Ahmadis in 1927, when Lord Headley was visiting, and made a speech praising the work at Woking?

In the same booklet Iqbal defends Ata-Turk against the charge that he had abandoned Islam. He writes:

“As long as a person is loyal to the two basic principles of Islam, i.e., the Unity of God and Finality of the Holy Prophet, not even the strictest mulla can turn him outside the pale of Islam even though his interpretations of the law or of the text of the Quran are believed to be erroneous.”

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and ourselves (the Lahori Ahmadis) have vigorously declared belief in these two principles.

Question: Do you accept that we are Muslims according to this definition?

No doubt you can question whether our interpretation of finality of prophethood is correct or erroneous, just as we can question your interpretation, but this definition says that a person believing these principles is a Muslim even if his interpretations of the Quran are erroneous.

One Response to “Additional, optional questions on Iqbal”

  1. January 1st, 2011 at 9:46 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Akber Choudhry has referred to these two questions in Part 2 at 17.15 minutes:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbTZKQF9CVI

    He says he has failed to understand the questions. This is either through his ignorance of the issues or a deliberate attempt at evasion.

    The first question is, since Iqbal in his booklet against Ahmadis says that they are favoured by the British to the detriment of Muslims, and that the British allowed the Ahmadis to open the Woking mission because Ahmadis are British stooges and agents, then why did he make speeches in support of the Woking mission’s work (in 1913 and 1927)?

    The programme presenter pronounced “Woking” as the word “working”. Woking is a town, only about 25 miles from where this programme was being broadcast.

    I notice that Akber Choudhry is reluctant to mention the very common allegation against Hazrat Mirza sahib that his movement was set up and supported by the British for their own interest. Perhaps, sitting in UK and trying to ingratiate himself to British authorities, he cannot afford to accuse others of being British imperialist stooges, because he would then appear to be anti-British.

    The second question relates to another statement in the same booklet by Iqbal. Iqbal defends Ata-Turk for all his measures to remove Islamic practices from Turkey! He then says that Ata-Turk is still a Muslim because:

    “As long as a person is loyal to the two basic principles of Islam, i.e., the Unity of God and Finality of the Holy Prophet, not even the strictest mulla can turn him outside the pale of Islam even though his interpretations of the law or of the text of the Quran are believed to be erroneous.”

    My question was, doesn’t this mean that anyone who, by word, accepts these two principles is a Muslim, for example, the Lahori Ahmadis?

    I then added that if Akber Choudhry alleges that Hazrat Mirza sahib or Lahoris, while accepting the finality in words, give it a wrong interpretation (i.e. they believe in coming of mujaddids who receive revelation), then we can make the same charge against Akber Choudhry and his friends. They also accept finality in words, but give it the interpretation that a prophet, Jesus, is going to return to the world.

    At least Lahoris interpret finality of prophethood as meaning that no prophet whatsoever can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (even though they believe in the coming of mujaddids). Akber Choudhry and his friends believe in the coming of a prophet, Jesus, and they are looking forward to the time when he returns to this world and then Akber Choudhry can introduce him to the world on Message TV in the words “This is Jesus, the Nabi, the Rasul, mentioned in the Quran”. Both of them can then be interviewed by their subservient programme host.


Leave a Reply