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


May 22nd, 2011

Question about a revelation and answer

Mr Arshad Khan has submitted the following question:

I have a simple question…what is the Lahori interpretation on this revelation of HMGA (as):

Arabic] O Adam, O Maryam [Mary],101 O Ahmad dwell you and your companion in the jannat—that is, into attaining the means of true salvation. I have breathed into you the spirit of righteousness from Myself.

Our principle of interpretation of any revelation of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is based on the fact that his revelation is wahy wilayat, not wahy nubuwwat. As he wrote in 1897 in reply to Maulvi Ghulam Dastgir about his revelation:

“And it is not wahy nubuwwat but wahy wilayat received by the saints (auliya) through the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad due to their perfect following of him, which is what we believe in. If anyone accuses us of going beyond this, he departs from honesty and fear of God.”

The interpretation of any wahy wilayat is subject to the authority of Quranic revelation and the teachings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s). Moreover, there should also be support for that interpretation by earlier saints of Islam. Wahy wilayat cannot set any new standard in its own right, rather it is subject to the standard set by the Quran and the Holy Prophet.

Throughout Islamic history, there are examples of Muslim saints receiving revelation in which they are called by names of prophets. It means they display certain qualities of those prophets and conduct their missions in accordance with those qualities. As Anne Marie Schimmel writes in her book Mystical Dimensions of Islam:

“According to some sufi orders, on the higher levels of his path the mystic ascends through the stations of the Islamic prophets, from Adam to Jesus; many Sufis remain in one of these stages, but the perfect shaikh is he who has become annihilated in the Prophet Muhammad. United with the haqiqa Muhammadiyya, he becomes the Perfect Man and thus leads his disciples with a guidance granted directly by God.” (p. 237)

“The Sufis particularly loved Mary. … She is often taken as the symbol of the spirit that receives divine inspiration and thus becomes pregnant with the divine light.” (p. 429)

Regarding the “means of true salvation” mentioned above in the quote from Hazrat Mirza sahib, Muslims had come to believe that merely acting in a mechanical and ritualistic manner on the commands of Islam leads to salvation. Hazrat Mirza sahib gave them the message that salvation lies in acting on these commands from the heart, with suppression of one’s lower desires. That is how he showed the true means of salvation to people, by unveiling again the true spirit of the teachings of Islam. True means of salvation is not to become a follower of Mirza sahib in a formal sense. In his booklet Kishti-i Nuh you can read about the high Islamic moral standard to be followed to attain salvation.

Regarding the breathing into him of the spirit of righeousness, you can find his own explanation in Barahin Ahmadiyya, Part 4, where he first published this revelation:

“This breathing of spirit in the real sense is confined to the prophets, and then certain special persons from among the Umma of the Holy Prophet Muhammad are granted this blessing due to their obedience and as inheritance.” (Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 1, p. 591)

These persons who, while not being prophets, inherit from prophets due to being their followers, include Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

33 Responses to “Question about a revelation and answer”

  1. The current thread begs the fundamental question “Does God communicate with (ordinary) man?”
     
    If such a communication was only limited to Prophetic chain which terminated with Muhammad (PBUH), then there was no intelligent need for God to discuss the nature of revelations with non-prophets, who had nothing to do with the revelations to begin with.
     
    In general, Divine Intelligence is no different than human intelligence as He imbibed that spirit in Adam and there are numerous verses about it. It is our intelligence which prevents us from jumping from upper story as we do not have wings. The basic understanding of right from wrong is something that humans get from the wombs of their mothers, though it could be refined by secular endeavors in life. Even though human intelligence is on a smaller scale than Divine Intelligence, yet it is on the same plane, else humans would not capture the Divine message.
     
    It is the Divine Wisdom which differs from human wisdom as the Divine Wisdom has the extra benefit of knowing about the future which humans do not possess. Therefore, any apparent loss that might emanate from a virtuous deed in present has long term gains to which God provides guarantees e.g. truthfulness, righteousness, seeking peace even at cost of deceit by the enemy which was demonstrated by Muhammad in Peace Treaty of Hudayibbya etc.
     
    It is under this Divine Wisdom that prophets are chosen. And it is the same Wisdom which determined Muhammad to be the last of the prophets. In His infinite Wisdom, Allah addresses the common man with regards to His communication to each one of us:

    42:51. It is not given to a human being that Allâh should speak to him except by direct revelation or from behind a veil or by sending a messenger (- an angel) who should reveal (to him) by His command what He pleases. Indeed, He is the Most Sublime, the All-Wise.[Note: veil also implies veil of sleep i.e. dreams as well as divine inspiration, which can be hidden to everyone else, but the recipient]

     
    Then it addresses Muhammad (PBUH) specifically:
     

    42:52. (Prophet!) just so (as We sent revelations to other Prophets), We revealed to you the Word by Our command. (Before this revelation) you did not know what the Divine Book was nor (which of) the faith (it teaches), but We made it (- Our revelation to you) a light, whereby We guide such of our servants as We will. And truly you are guiding (mankind) on to the straight and right path,

    42:53. The path of Allâh to whom belongs all that lies in the heavens and all that lies in the earth. Behold! to Allâh do all things eventually return.

     
    Mirza Sahib in his various writings emphasizes salvation by means of Quran. This spirit of salvation in Islam is reflected in the following verses:
     

    2:2. 2. This is the only perfect Book, wanting in naught, containing nothing doubtful, harmful or destructive, there is no false charge in it. It is a guidance for those who guard against evil; [i.e. guard by action, which is the fundamental revivalist message of Mirza Sahib]

    2:3. Those who believe in the existence of hidden reality, that which is beyond the reach of human perception and ordinary cognisance [-this is at the core of progressive secular life and scientific discoveries], and who observe the Prayer and spend (on others) out of that which We have provided for them,[-this is where the secularist transitions into Islam, when he starts to believe in Divine Wisdom and the rewards of present and future]

    2:4. And who (also) believe in that (Message) which has been revealed to you and in that which had been revealed before you, and who have firm faith in the Hereafter. [-thus making a Muslim seeker of the truth no matter what its source is. In the fourteenth Islamic century, its revivalist source was the Mujaddid’s message of Mirza Sahib]

    2:5. It is they who follow the guidance from their Lord [the guidance may be by direct revelation to the individual and/or the Quran, and/or Mujaddids in our times who explain and contextualize the Quran to us while removing the accumulated temporal dross in Islam], and it is they alone who are successful in attaining their object in this life and in the Hereafter. [This is a challenge to Allah Himself. A rightfully guided person cannot be but Successful]

     


  2. May 23rd, 2011 at 12:10 pm
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    Were there any muslim divines in the past besides HMGA who described their spiritual experiences as “Wahy”?


  3. May 23rd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Please see this link for details:

    http://www.ahmadiyya.org/sa-case/evidence/s04.htm

    The Holy Quran itself uses the word wahy for revelation to the mother of Moses (28:7, 20:38) and to the disciples of Jesus (5:111). They were not prophets. In these verses Allah says “I sent wahy to…” or “We sent wahy to…”.

    Then, in his classical dictionary of the Quran, Imam Raghib defines wahy as follows:

    Al-kalimatu-llati tulqa ila anbiya’i-hi wa auliya’i-hi wahy-un.

    “The word of God which is communicated to His prophets and His saints is called wahy.”


  4. Dear Aziz Sahib,

    Thank you for accepting my question with a pure heart.  However, I was attempting to breach the question of the Lahori doctrine in terms of the birth of Jesus and this revelation by HMGA (as). 

    It seems that in 1884, in Braheen e Ahmadiyya, HMGA (As) recieved this revelation that points towards the miraculous birth of Jesus.  Then in 1902, in his book, Kishti Nuh, he elaborated on the revelation and said that he had himself became Maryam (may allah be pleased with her).  Then Allah breathed life into him (HMGA) (as). 

    Sorry for not being clear…my question is referring to the immaculate conception theory of Jesus and a particalur revelation of HMGA (As). 

    It seems to me that when Allah breathed into HMGA (as) who actually Maryam at the time metaphorically, this proves that HMGA (as) received divine knowledge in terms of the birth of Jesus. 

    Thank You sir. 


  5. May 24th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Thank you for your kind remarks. Here is my explanation.

    If you read the extract in Kishti-i Nuh mentioned by you, or elsewhere where this revelation is mentioned, you will see that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has mentioned the last verse of Sura Tahrim (ch. 66) as being the source from which this concept is derived, and he writes that, according to this verse, just as a spirit from God was breathed into Mary and Jesus was born as a result, similarly after a believer (or he himself in this case) reaches the spiritual stage of Mary, then a spirit from God is breathed into him to produce a Messiah.

    So the question is, what is meant by the following words of that verse:

    “…Mary, daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into him (or it) of Our Spirit (ruh)…”.

    What was breathed in, and what was it breathed into?

    Now you had enquired about the Lahore Ahmadiyya interpretation. I will refer you to the Qadiani Jamaat interpretation of the above words of the last verse of Sura Tahrim (ch. 66).

    1. Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifa 2, writes in his Tafsir Saghir:

    “People say Jesus is the spirit because he was placed in the womb of Mary. This is lack of understanding. The meaning of ‘ruh’, as we have explained earlier, is also ‘word’. Thus it only means: We sent our word to Mary, and by this revelation We gave her the news of the birth of the Messiah.”

    http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=758&region=TS

    2. In the 5-volumed English commentary on http://www.alislam.org it is explained under this verse that the words “into him (or it)” mean “into the believer” or “into an opening through which sin can find access”. See:

    http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=2653&region=E1

    So it is not any spirit being breathed by God into Mary to make her pregnant, but into the believer.

    3. In the Urdu translation by Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib, Khalifa 4, the above words are translated as:

    “so We breathed into that (child) something from our Spirit”.

    See: http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1052&region=UR

    So here it is Jesus into whom spirit or revelation is breathed.

    Here then we have three opinions from the very highest leaders of the Qadiani Jamaat, saying that the spirit breathed was not the spirit which made Mary pregnant with Jesus, and therefore apparently contradicting the view of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

    Maulana Muhammad Ali’s interpretation is exactly the same as Qadiani Jamaat commentators I have quoted above. So it is rather incomprehensible that Lahoris are accused of going against Hazrat Mirza sahib’s views on this issue, when Qadiani Jamaat khalifas are themselves giving the same interpretation as the Lahoris!

    The fact is that the similarity between Mary and the believer who becomes ‘Mary’ in this verse does not require the belief that Mary conceived Jesus without a male agency. The meaning of the verse is that just as revelation was breathed into Mary after her purification, and as a result of this prophecy Jesus was born, similarly a believer after becoming ‘Mary’ has revelation breathed into him and gives birth to the Messiah. You could say that Mary became pregnant by the revelation or prophecy she received, which is not related to the question of how she became physically pregnant.


  6. May 25th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
    From Dil Sooz:

    In words of famed Urdu Poetess Parveen Shakir:
    “Uss nay tapti huey paishani pay Jab hath rakha
    Ruh tak uttar gai taseer masse-hai key”
    Translation:
    When he touched my burning (feverish) forehead with his hand
    His healing prowess sank to my soul

    This is art of Messiah ( Physician) experienced in everyday life. What if someone is touched ( spiritually ) by hand of God. Just imagine !


  7. With all due respect.  Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.  And yes I am an Ahmadi. 

    I reviewed all the data that you posted.  It seems that Muhammad Ali wanted to make this verse sound as if the fetus/embryo (Jesus) was already developed and Allah simply breathed into an already developed person the spirit as a sign that the child would recieve divine revelation.  At least thats my understanding of the data that you presented. 

    Whereas, we believe that Allah had Jibrael breathe into the womb of Mary which caused her to get pregnant.  See the books of HMGA (as) for further details. 

    As far as the references to my jamaats Qurans are concerned.  This is just a drop in the bucket.  What I mean is that the entire story of the birth of jesus is conveyed through a multitude of verses and books by HMGA (as).  Yes, Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) did define this particular verse with some ambiguity which gives the reader several options.  However, in other places he explains the immaculate conception theory admirably. 

    Furthermore, in a book by HMGA (as) called Chashma e Masihi, the PM (as) says:

    “When thousands of insects are born by themselves during the rainy season, and Adamas  was also born without parents, it is no proof of Jesus’ eminence if he, too, was born in the same manner (page 29).“ 

    In the revelation of HMGA (as) that I referred to, I am of the opinion that in 1884 when HMGA (as) received this revelation he defined it as to point towards the immaculate conception of Jesus.  As it obviously does.  Almost 20 years later he began to elaborate on this revelation as well as his divine ideas on the topic.  In fact, I hypothesize that he used this revelation to base his fatwa on the birth of Jesus. 
     

     

     


  8. May 25th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Regarding your comment “It seems that Muhammad Ali wanted to make this verse sound as if the fetus/embryo (Jesus) was already developed”, it seems you may have misread what I wrote, or perhaps I wasn’t clear. This is in fact opinion number (3) that I quoted from the Qadiani Jamaat leaders, namely, the view of of Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib.

    When I wrote “Maulana Muhammad Ali’s interpretation is exactly the same as Qadiani Jamaat commentators I have quoted above”, I meant that his view shares the common factor in the three Qadiani Jamaat views, that this verse does not refer to Mary being made physically pregnant. To be more precise, his view is the same as the number (2) which I quoted, that the one who is breathed into is the believer who exemplifies Mary.

    The point under discussion is not the interpretation, given by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad sahib or other Qadiani Jamaat leaders, of some other verse of the Quran from which they seek to show the virgin birth of Jesus. The point is that they do not consider this particular verse in Sura Tahrim to be referring to the virgin birth, and the revelation of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that you originally asked about is related to this verse.

    Please note that he issued no “fatwa” about the birth of Jesus. He merely repeated the view generally held by Muslims.

    As to the quote from Chashma Masihi, it seems to indicate that the virgin birth of Jesus is not really a matter of much consequence. A miracle of a prophet should prove his greatness. But this miracle doesn’t show his greatness. Immediately after the quote that you have given, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad continues:

    “In fact, birth without having a father is an argument on deprivation of certain powers.”

    Does this miracle then work in support of Jesus and strengthen him, as a miracle of a prophet should?


  9. Dear Mr. Aziz,

    I have reviewed your explanation.  Can we agree to disagree?  I feel that the revelation of HMGA (as) in 1884, wherein the ruh of allah was breathed into him (he was mary at the time), was of the same nature as this verse that we have been discussing. 

    This ruh that was breathed into Hazrat Mirza (as) sahib caused him to become pregnant and give birth to Jesus, which was himself.  I feel that this revelation implies that Jesus was born miraculously.  It is thus impossible to remain an Ahmadi and deny this revelation of Hazrat Mirza (as) sahib.  About 7 years later, Allah told Mirza sahib (as) that he was himself Jesus.  In 1902, Mirza sahib (as) explained the entire story that allah was telling him as early as 1884 that he was Jesus, Mirza sahib (as) just failed to understand. 

    Furthermore, the 5 volume commentary by Malik Ghulam Fareed gives the translation as such:

    “We breathed therein of our spirit”. 

    http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=2653&region=E1&CR=

    I think Fatwa was the wrong wording.  I meant to say that in Mahawab ur Rahman (1903), Hazrat Mirza (as) sahib confirmed that he believed Jesus to be born miraculously. 

    With all due respect intended.  Thank you for publishing my responses.  I hope I have been respectful. 


  10. The basic ingredients for creation of man are (the metaphorical) clay and God’s spirit:

    32:7. Who made perfectly well all that He created. And He originated the creation of a human being from clay.
    32:8. Then He created his seed from an extract of an insignificant fluid (derived by his consuming food produced from clay or soil).
    32:9. Then He endowed him with perfect faculties (of head and heart in accordance with what he is meant to be) and breathed into him of His spirit (thus made him the recipient of the Divine word). And He has given you hearing, eyes and hearts. Yet little are the thanks you give.[Nooruddin]

    Lets not forget that the above discussed creation is of each and every human in the world which happens in the womb of a mother.

    Now, continuing from the post of Arshad – if Jesus was to be born as just another human then why is Mary’s conception of Jesus a complicated discussion? Am I missing something?


  11. May 27th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    I will just point out that there is another verse in the Holy Quran, similar to the last verse of ch. 66, which is as follows: “she who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her of Our ruh” (21:91).

    Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes about this verse as follows (the bolding is mine):

    “It is an error to think that the spirit (ruh) breathed into Jesus was exclusive to him, not shared by anyone else. In fact, this view almost amounts to kufr. … Undoubtedly Jesus was one of those who are born free of the touch of the Satan and the spirit of Iblis. His being born without a father was a separate matter, which has no connection with the holy spirit. In the world, thousands of worms and insects are born during the rainly season without a father, in fact without a mother or a father. Are they called progeny of the holy spirit? The progeny of the holy spirit are those who are conceived when the mothers are in the condition of perfect virtuousness of character and the fathers are of perfectly pure minds.” (Tuhfa Golarwiyya, see Ruhani Khazain, v. 17, p. 297)

    So, being born without a father is not connected with the verses about ruh being breathed into someone.

    Ruh in this verse is considered by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as “spirit”. However, it is translated in Qadiani Jamaat English translations (short commentary, five-volume commentary, and the Maulvi Sher Ali versions) as “Word”, and likewise in Tafsir-i Saghir and Tafsir-i Kabir as “kalam”. In Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib’s Urdu transation it is “amr”.

    So none of these translations by the top-most, Qadiani Jamaat leaders accord with the Promised Messiah’s own rendering! Maulana Muhammad Ali has translated it as “inspiration”, which covers the idea of spirit as well as revelation.


  12. Dear Mr. Aziz,

    6:160
    “As for those who split up their religion and became divided into sects, thou hast no concern at all with them. Surely their case will come before Allah, then will He inform them of what they used to do.”

    That being said the case of our Lahori brothers will be solved with Allah.
    And..the LAM dont believe in the words of HMGA (as). HMGA believed that Esa (as) was bron without the agency of a father. This is an admitted fact by all Ahmadi sects. HMGA (as) even said this:

    Seeratul_Mahdi
    pdf page 114/316
    Narration no. 645

    ” Dr.Ismail narrated to me that once we were talking about birth of Jesus. Masih Moud (mgaq) said Allah tala created Jesus without a father to show that now bani Israel are not left with a single man whose seed can father (bear) a prophet and now there is end of prophethood in this nation. And time has come for bani Ismail to bear Nabi….”


  13. June 1st, 2011 at 5:44 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Mr Arshad, you may be aware that the verse you have quoted is also used by the anti-Ahmadiyya people against the Promised Messiah to say that he created a further sect in Islam. In fact, your own Jamaat’s repeated claim is that you are the 73rd sect of Islam.

    Your needing to quote from Seeratul Mahdi shows your lack of knowledge. That same view is to be found in the Promised Messiah’s own books! Do you consider Seeratul Mahdi as an authentic source?

    You have not answered why the Qadiani translations of the Quran translate ruh differently from how the Promised Messiah explained the same word, as I showed above?


  14. Dear Mr. Aziz

    I am aware that in some instances this verse is used against Ahmadiyyat.  However, the creation of Ahmadiyyat was necessary for the revival of Islam. 
    Furthermore, the break-away by Muhammad Ali sahib and his friends was the epitome of sect creation inside Ahmadiyyat.

     If the sons of HMGA (as) were as bad as you people claimed then Ahmadiyyat has been rocked to the core.  If this reality is true, as you claim, then Ahmadiyyat has failed as has the mission of Hazrat sahib (as). 


  15. June 1st, 2011 at 9:42 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    The founding of the Lahore Jamaat was necessary for the revival of Ahmadiyyat. It was proved correct when the Qadiani Jamaat had to retreat from their position of calling all other Muslims as kafir. Does the Qadiani Jamaat now hold the views of Mirza Bashir Ahmad (the younger) expressed in his book Kalimat-ul-Fasal published 1915? See this link:

    http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/takfir-kalimat-ul-fasl.htm

    For example, he writes about the Kalima of Islam:

    “…the same Kalima is still to be used for admission into Islam, the difference merely being that the coming of the Promised Messiah has added one more messenger to the significance of the words ‘Muhammad is the messenger of Allah’ “.

    What a highly dangerous statement, which amounts to saying that Ahmadis believe in the Kalima but with a difference that they include the Promised Messiah in it implicitly.

    “If the sons of HMGA were as bad as you people claimed …”

    What about the followers of Moses of even his own time worshipping the calf, and similarly followers of Jesus deserting him? Does it mean their missions failed?


  16. @Arshad:

    “If the sons of HMGA (as) were as bad as you people claimed then Ahmadiyyat has been rocked to the core. ”

    NO, infact this proved TRUTHFULNESS OF HMGA. Yes, i again say, Character of sons of HMGA proved that HMGA was a GENUINE mamur-min-Allah.

    Remember:
    HMGA claimed to be like of Prophet Lot (Lut AS) and Prophet Noah (Nuh AS). HMGA wife i.e. mother of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his sons, and daughter were exactly like wife and sons of prophets Lot and Noah. Arshad, i am amazed, you don’t believe in truthfulness of HMGA and fulfillment of his claims!


  17. Dear Mr Aziz,

    The Ahmadiyya jamaat was created by Hazrat Sahib officially in 1900 or so.  Im sure you know the story.  In 1914, Muhammad Ali sahib and his friends broke away.  Hazrat Mirza Bashirrudin Mahmud Ahmad (ra) didnt break-away.  He managed the original organization.  These are the facts.  You are trying to write that the creation of the LAM as a seperate sect of Ahmadiyyat doesnt constitute the creation of a break-away.  Please correct me if I am wrong. 

    Furthermore, in 1906 HMGA (as) wrote a private letter to Dr, Abdul Hakim Khan that was recently discusses on this blog wherein Hazrat sahib (as) called all people as Kafirs. 

    You, yourself wrote that in this instance Hazrat sahib (as) was using a figure a speech.  He did not mean it literally.  The same answer is valid for the writings of Hazrat Mirza Bashirrudin Mahmud Ahmad and Mirza Bashir Ahmad.  Can u agree? 

    Dear Mr Rashid,

    Allah directly told Hazrat Nuh (as) that his sons were evil.  The parallel doesnt exist in terms of Hazrat Sahib (as).  In fact, Hazrat sahib called Mirza Bashir Ahmad as the moon of the prophets.  He also spoke highly of all of his off-spring.  Furthermore, he exempted his family from paying to be buried in Bahisti Maqbara.   


  18. June 3rd, 2011 at 10:06 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Mr Arshad, Maulana Muhammad Ali was forced to leave Qadian as his life was under threat from supporters of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. He was not allowed to stay there and argue for the real beliefs of Hazrat Mirza sahib. The breakaway sect is the Qadiani Jamaat, as they broke away from the teachings of Hazrat Mirza sahib.

    I am astounded at your mention of the earlier blog discussion about the letter to Dr Abdul Hakim. If you read it you will have seen that the discussion was about the fact that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad used that letter to claim that all other Muslims were actually kafir and non-Muslim. So how can we apply our interpretation of that letter (that other Muslims are not being declared kafir) to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s own writings when he has published the letter within his own writings to claim that it calls other Muslims as kafir?

    Moreover, in The Truth About the Split Mirza Mahmud Ahmad has spent many pages rebuking Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din for giving his article (i.e. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s 1911 article calling all other Muslims as kafir) the interpretation which you, Mr Arshad, are now asking me to give to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s writings! See pages 144-150 of the edition on your Jamaat’s website. So Mirza Mahmud Ahmad rebukes us, in strong and clear words, for giving his article our interpretation, and you are asking us to give his writings that same interpretation for which he rebukes us!

    Shouldn’t you now be scolded and rebuked by your Khalifa?


  19. @Arshad:
     
    “The parallel doesnt exist in terms of Hazrat Sahib (as).  In fact, Hazrat sahib called Mirza Bashir Ahmad as the moon of the prophets.  He also spoke highly of all of his off-spring.”
     
    Open your “HOLY BOOK” Tazkira, and look for quotes of HMGA where he gave his visions, in which he saw his wife (mother of QK2), children, and his place of meditation and prayer in humiliating conditions, far from spirituality and in pursuit of worldly gains.
     
    “Furthermore, he exempted his family from paying to be buried in Bahisti Maqbara.”
     
    HMGA knew his children do not/ will not qualify spiritually, but out of his paternal love he thought by making it free for them to get them buried might save them from fires of hell. STILL NONE OF HMGA CHILDREN GOT BURIED in Bahisti-Maqbara, in Qadian. Despite having physical possession, financial strength, political connections NONE of children of HMGA got buried there. Instead they opened their FRANCHISE Bahisti-Maqbara (B-M) in other countries and cities. QK4 wish was to be buried in B-M in Qadian, and for this purpose his body was transferred into a different smell leak proof casket for airline journey, still Allah SWT created situations that he does not get buried there. Not that everyone who gets buried in B-M Qadian is bound for paradise, rather it was ONLY a wish of HMGA to have righteous people get buried together.
     
    WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE YOU NEED TO GET CONVINCED THAT HMGA WIFE AND CHILDREN WERE FAR FROM SPIRITUALITY.


  20. Dear Mr. Rashid

    Excuse me, but I get the impression that your writings contain an extensive hate for my jamaat.  First and foremost you used an unfair parallel.  That was that of Hadrhat Nuh (as).  The parallel doesnt exist simply becuase Allah told Nuh (as) about the evils of his family.  Whereas, Allah told HMGA (as):

    Written in 1899 about a revelation of 1881

    Translation: [Arabic] God, Who has bestowed upon you a marital arrangement with a noble family who are Sayyed, is the True God. Also, He has made your own descent from a noble family55 which is compounded mix of Persians and Sayyeds.[Tiry aqul-Qul ub, p. 64, R uhan i Khaz  a
    ’in, vol. 15, pp. 272–273]
    55
     
    In this revelation the family of my wife and my family are both described together as having been provided by God and both have been treated as praiseworthy to about the same extent. This is a clear indication that as my in-laws are descendants of Hadrat Fatimah, in the same way there is a mix of descent from Hadrat Fatimah in my genealogy through some of my grandmothers. The precedence given to my wife’s family in the revelation over my family is to stress the fact that she is a direct descendant of Hadrat Fatimah and I have partly inherited her blood.{Tohfah Golarhviyyah, p. 19, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 17, p. 117
    ]

    And there are many many more…


  21. Dear Arshad: Please re-read your own quotes. HMGA is writing about noble genealogy of his and his wife’s families only. No where is he mentioning the earned nobility of his wife and his children.
     
    As regards wives of Nuh and Lot, they too were descendents of at least one prominent one, may I say Adam! There is no merit in genealogy in Islam. Muhammad PBUH himself belonged to an idolatrous family. But having said that, belonging to a virtuous family has it advantages to excel spiritually, but through action only e.g.:
     
    2:2. … It is a guidance for those who guard against evil; [i.e. guard by action]
     
    What do you or your Jamaat has to say about Solomon’s prayer below?
     
    38:35. He [i.e. Solomon] said (praying), `My Lord! grant me protection and bestow on me a kingdom that belongs to none (by inheritance) after me. You indeed are the Great Bestower.


  22. June 7th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has recorded in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy that “I saw frightening dreams many times clearly telling of some tribulation to befall regarding the family of my father-in-law Mir Nasir Nawab”. In one of these he saw Mir Nasir Nawab’s wife inviting an enemy into the house. He writes: “The interpretation of inviting is that the inviter, due only to certain weaknesses of faith which are known to God, invites disaster into his house.”

    As a result, the promise of Allah given to Hazrat Mirza sahib that all those in his house would be proetcted from the raging plague epidemic except the disobedient was withdrawn by Allah from Mir Nasir Nawab’s family, and his son Mir Muhammad Ishaq came down with this disease. Writes Hazrat Mirza sahib: “I told the family of Mir Nasir Nawab that although I was praying, they must repent greatly and seek forgiveness of God because I had seen in a dream that they had invited an enemy into the house and this pointed to some failing on their part.”

    Only through special prayers of Hazrat Mirza sahib was this averted because: “if someone died of plague in my house then the biggest storm would arise in my falsification”. (see Sign number 143, pages 327-329).

    There was another similar incident mentioned in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy (see pages 87-88, footnote) in which Mirza Sharif Ahmad (paternal grandfather of present Qadiani Khalifa) contracted the same disease despite the promise of Allah to Hazrat Mirza sahib to protect those in his house. Again Hazrat Mirza sahib had to say special prayers to avert his son’s death.

    This foreshadowed what was to happen later. The same weakness of faith by his family and their inviting the enemy into the house (i.e. giving opponents the ammunition with which to attack Ahmadiyyat) led to the withdrawal of the promises and protection of Allah.

    In both these incidents, he says that if the boy died his opponents would subject him to great embarrassment and falsification. That also happened later, in that the deviation of his family from his teachings caused him the greatest embarrassment and falsification at the hands of his opponents.

    Note that the Holy Prophet Muhammad gave good news to ten of his companions that they would enter paradise (the `ashra mubashara). Yet all of them still considered themselves to be fully accountable before God and man for their deeds and punishable for any wrong they did, and all Muslims considered them accountable as well.

    Never ever did any of them defend any action of theirs, or answer criticism, by saying: I have been guaranteed entry to heaven by the Holy Prophet, so how could I have done wrong?

    For example, Hazrat Umar was always afraid of being taken to task by Allah for some default, and even when dying he said he might go to heaven or to hell. One year after his death, a saint saw Hazrat Umar in a vision, that he was heavily perspiring. Hazrat Umar said to him: This is my condition because I have spent the whole year being questioned by Allah, and if it wasn’t for His mercy I would have been punished.

    These great persons lived in the real world of facts and deeds, not in a fantasy land like the Qadiani Jamaat leadership.


  23. Dear Mr. Aziz,

    Didnt Hazrat Sahib (as) have the same issue with Muhammad Ali sahib?  Didnt Muhammad Ali also get really sick once and it was thought that he had the plague?  Im sorry for not having the reference handy. 

    Werent there other Ahmadis who died from the Plague?  Doesnt that complicate this particular revelation of Hazrat Sahib (as).  We all know that almost every single prophecy of Hazrat Sahib (as) was conditional.  Why are we venturing into an area that will cause communal strife between Ahmadis? 

    The split happened.  Lets not defame each other anymore than we have already.  Can we agree on that?  Lets not attack the personalities…we should stick to doctrine.  In the case of Rashid, I believe he has relatives that are Ahmadi like me.  His case may be different because of family issues.  He appears to be distraught over the split.  His life appears to revolve around defaming my jamaat. 


  24. One more comment.  This in in terms of the numbers of my jamaat that were recently attacked.  Hazrat sahib (as) was also giving numbers that may not be accurate.  This shouldnt be a moment of grief for anyone. 

    In Victory of Islam written in late 1890, this was the first book published after Mirza sahib (as) claimed to be Esa (as).  He writes:

    “During the last seven years there could have been about 60,000 or more visitors.”

    This would calculate to about 164 visitors per day.  That is impossible.  Its simple math, 60k/365.  This is from 1884 to 1891.  Hypothetically, of the 164 people that came per day to Qadian via horse carriage, how many accepted Hazrat Sahib (as) as a Nazir or a Mujadid or a ‘sent-one’?  Did Hazrat sahib (as) err in terms of the numbers? 

    Are there any more objections that need clearance? 


  25. June 7th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    “Did Hazrat sahib (as) err in terms of the numbers? ”

    What is your answer to this question? Surely as a follower of Hazrat Mirza sahib you must have some explanation of your own.

    If you are saying that he erred and your khalifas erred in the same way, then remember that the facilities he had for keeping records in the village of Qadian in 1890 were nothing as compared to the computerised facilities your Jamaat had in the modern world in the years late 1990s to early 2000s during which the claim of 200 million was made.

    Also, the “simple math” is not 60k/365 per day but 60k/(7*365) per day, which is 23 or 24.


  26. June 7th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    “Didnt Hazrat Sahib (as) have the same issue with Muhammad Ali sahib?”

    I am glad you raised this. Hazrat Mirza sahib writes in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy that when the Maulana came to think that he might have caught this disease:

    “I said to him: If you have got the plague then I am a liar and my claim to receive Divine revelation is wrong.”

    He did not say: If you have got plague, it means that there must be some weakness of faith in you, and so you must repent of your sins while I will say special prayers to prevent disgrace befalling my name! That is what he did in the case of his relations.

    You say: “We all know that almost every single prophecy of Hazrat Sahib (as) was conditional.”

    Of course. And the condition in this case was that the disobedient and those lacking in faith were not covered by the promise, which is what applied in the case of his relations.

    I wanted to ask you, Mr Arshad, about your credentials for debating on behalf of the Qadiani Jamaat and acting as the khalifas’ apologist. Do you belong to any particular branch of the Qadiani Jamaat, or have received training/education from your Jamaat, or do you belong to any known family in the Jamaat?


  27. @Arshad:
     
    You suggested Dr. ZA: “Lets not attack the personalities…we should stick to doctrine.”
     
    Qadiani jamaat does efforts to clear name of Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS from charges on his character by opponents of Holy Prophet.

    Qadiani jamaat also makes efforts to clear name of HMGA from charges on his character by opponents of HMGA (although references to these charges are provided from Qadianis Holy Book “Seeratul Mahdi” by Qadianis “Qamar-ul-Anbiyya” Mirza Bashir Ahmad).

    But when it comes to charges on character of Qadiani Khalifa Mirza Mahmud Ahmad BY HIS OWN NEAR, DEAR, RELATIVES AND STAUNCH FOLLOWERS (remember none of these charges were originally made by QK2 opponents), Qadianis say: “Lets not attack the personalities…we should stick to doctrine.”!

    Arshad, a person who is NOT brainwashed and NOT willing to swallow what ever is fed to him by Qadianis Khalifa can see through Qadianis defense. Qadianis know character of their QK2 is NOT defendable. So, they look for excuse where they don’t have to defend him. Today after 29 years I talked to my Qadiani friend, and he used the same argument that you suggested, and he heard the same reply that I gave you. He was quiet after listening to my reply.
     
    “In the case of Rashid, I believe he has relatives that are Ahmadi like me.  His case may be different because of family issues.  He appears to be distraught over the split.  His life appears to revolve around defaming my jamaat.”
     
    Don’t try to color my opposition to your QK2 as based on some personal issue. Lives of LAM members do revolve around issue of carrying HMGA mission. And they face difficulties created due to QK2. This is the reason they point out the person who caused all this harm.

    My father was the first one in family to accept HMGA as ‘mamur-min-Allah’. Thank God none of my immediate blood relatives lived in Qadian or in Rabwah. According to Syed Mubarik Shah (relative of QK5 wife) son of Syed Sarwar Shah, currently living in Hamburg, Germany, QK2 messed in 500 families living in Qadian and Rabwah. So, it is unfortunately, families of today’s Qadianis who paid price of going with QK2 in 1914.


  28. Dear Mr. Aziz, 

    I estimate that Hazrat Sahib (as) was maybe getting 5-6 visitors per day from 1884–1891.  And remember he left town many times.  Also, You have to minus the 40 days in Hoshiarpur.  And he was sick alot as well.  My only purpose was to show that numbers are very easily skewed.  The Tajneed list that is maintained has lots of flaws in it.  Ahmadis convert and then we never hear from these people ever again.  When was the last time that the LAM gave out official numbers?  What is the LAM population by the way?  It cant be more than 40k worldwide. 

    As far as Muhammad Ali contracting signs of plague are concerned.  The fact that he was suspected of plague means more than you can imagine.  And remember…none of these people eventually died.  Hazrat Sahib (as) also said that Esa (as) was born fatherless, and you disagree with that assesment.  You have to be consistent in your approach to Ahmadiyyat.  If you value what Hazrat sahib (as) said….you must be consistent. 

    I dont understand why Mr. Aziz has asked questions in terms of my credentials.  You might not know it, but we do have freedom of expression and thought in the Ahmadiyya Movement.  As long as we dont specifically hurt our image of peace and goodwill.  I am an Ahmadi like Mirza Basheerudin Mahmud Ahmad (ra), like Noorudin (ra) and like Hadrat sahib (as).  I belong to main thrust of Ahmadiyyat.  

    Dear Mr Rashid, 

    Unfortunatlely your family problems have spilled over into public debate.  Hopefully these problems can be solved internally.   


  29. June 9th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Mr Arshad, instead of diverting attention on how many visitors Hazrat Mirza sahib received 120 years ago, which cannot be determined now, think of what can be determined very easily now, i.e. the number of members in your records worldwide. Is it more like 1 million or like 10 million or like 100 million? We are only raising this question because your Jamaat repeatedly raises it and presents it as an argument of its truth.

    No one “suspected” that Maulana Muhammad Ali had plague. The Promised Messiah said he couldn’t have got it! Of his own relations he said, they did get it because of weakness of faith. He told them to repent.

    What comparison does this have with the birth of Jesus issue? The Promised Messiah was proved correct before people’s eyes who saw that Maulana Muhammad Ali was actually perfectly well. Yet his relatives did not recover without his special prayers because they lost the protection promised by the revelation. These are known facts, not interpretations of an event in the distant past.

    You say: “we do have freedom of expression and thought in the Ahmadiyya Movement”. What proof can you give of this claim? Can you show examples of people who are exercising this freedom by being able to openly express their opinions even if it disagrees with your Jamaat leadership? Can you show your own example that you ever expressed an opinion within your Jamaat which differed from the leadership, and you were allowed by them to do so?

    Remember, freedom of expression is not being free to say the same thing as your Jamaat leadership! It is being able to say the opposite. Also, freedom of expression is not being free to say anything you like through this blog when no one knows who you are! It is being able to say what you like as a person known to your audience.

    So please go ahead and express an opinion which is opposed to your Jamaat leadership’s view, and do it as an identifiable member of your Jamaat, and that will test whether your Jamaat allows freedom of expression or not.


  30. @Arshad:
    “Dear Mr Rashid,
    Unfortunatlely your family problems have spilled over into public debate.  Hopefully these problems can be solved internally.”
     
    I gave examples of my own family members, both Qadianis and LAM, to drive message home. My FANATIC Qadiani relatives also read this blog. I want my message to sink in them. I want them to register my point of view. For this I give example of their fathers, uncles, and grand parents. And at the same time my non-relatives Qadianis can not accuse me a “Lahori” of making up stories or just repeating hear say.
    Please don’t try to brush off the underlying causes of Muslims hatred towards Qadianis and by ‘guilty by association’ towards Lahoris.
     


  31. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s ILHAM for Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ali and other elders of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement:

    On HPP channel video:
    Qadianies insult the very pious and devoted friends of Hazrat Masih Maud. Mirza Mahmud Ahmed, Khalifa Sani and so-called Musleh Maud used derogatory and abusive remarks about Maulana Mohammad Ali and his Jammat Lahore.
    لاھور کے اصحاب کی تکذیب

     http://www.youtube.com/ahmediyyagazette1#p/u/1/YfCv9UkxAr0


  32. Dear Arshad – to quote you:
    You might not know it, but we do have freedom of expression and thought in the Ahmadiyya Movement.
     
    Please qualify your freedom of expression and thought. Does your Jamaat have a blog, open Q&A session on your video channel, public posting of your accounts or expense reports of Khilafat.  If there are such forums for your Jamaat then please share them so that world can see. Else, take into account the following verses that are coming to fruition in our times all over the world, but Qadiani Jamaat:
     
    81:10. And when books and papers will be spread abroad, [by dissemination of knowledge by modern electronic and print media?]
    81:14. Every soul will know then what (store of deeds) it has brought forward.[by internet data mining and public records of individuals and organizations? by accountability in modern democracies? open debates? blogs?]
     
    If a Jamaat of millions does not have such disclosures or forums, then that Jamaat has to self reflect as to what single entity within their organization is not letting it happen and why? You probably know that it is the office of Khilafat for reasons that any one can see except those who are blinded by dogmas:
     
    2:6. As for those who are bent upon denying (the truth), they would not believe, because it is all the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them.

    2:7. (With the result that) Allâh has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and on their eyes is a covering…
     
    The remedy for this intellectual blindness is also provided by Quran i.e.
     
    22:46. Why do they not travel in the land so that they should have hearts that help them to understand and ears which can help them hear? As a matter of fact (when going astray) it is not the (physical) eyes that are blind but blind are the hearts which lie in the bosoms.
     
    By implication the members of Jamaat of millions  – Why do they not travel in the land so that they should have hearts that help them to understand and ears which can help them hear – should demand transparency of their organization like any other organization in the world i.e. its bye-laws, election to the office and board of governors, equal opportunity, income, expenses, audits etc…


  33. Apparently, the “Freedom of Speech and Expression” ingrained in Qadiani Jamaat is accepted by their leadership as long as it is directed towards Lahoris and not towards themselves.  This reminds me of the cliche of a joke:
     
    A businessman from the United States of America is at a restaurant in Riyadh. He tells the local host that the USA is the best country in the world because of the freedoms it has. He says, “Take Freedom of Speech for example. I could stand in front of the White House in Washington D.C. and yell ‘President Bush is an idiot!’ and nothing would be done to me.”
     
    The Saudi replies, “We have that same freedom in the kingdom. I could stand in front of King’s Palace and yell the same thing and nothing would be done to me either!”


Leave a Reply