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


October 31st, 2011

Response to a challenge

Note by Admin: Jamal submitted the following as a comment on an existing thread. I have made it a new post.


@Rashid:

Here is the reference you requested:

سو یہ بات کہ اسؔ کو اُمّتی بھی کہا اورنبی بھی۔ اس بات کی طرف اشارہ ہے کہ دونوں شانیں اُمتیت اور نبوت کی اُس میں پائی جائیں گی
“Thus, the fact that he is called “Ummati” and also “Nabi” indicates that both the qualities of “Ummatiyyat” and “Nubuwwat” will be found in him.” (Ruhani Khaza’in, Volume: 3, Page: 386, Book: Izala Auham)

Now, can I get my $1000, or are you going to insist in a childish way on the fact that the two words must be attached together? Just like the Jews and Christians laugh at the Qur’an when it mentions in surah 48 the signs of Muslims as they are supposedly written in the Torah and Injil, but which do not exist in exactly those words in either the Torah or the Gospels? I hope that you will not be so stubborn, and that you will accept that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has said here that he is both “Ummati” and “Nabi” in the same sentence.

Let’s see how ready you are to give away those $1000. Personally, I think you are just bluffing. After such a clear reference, how can anyone with a sincere heart and who fears Allah claim that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not write that he is both Ummati and Nabi? If anyone asked him: “Are you an Ummati Nabi?” He would reply: “Yes, as I had written in Izala Auham.”

You will probably not even let this post go through. I am not expecting you will have the sincerity to allow people to see the truth and to see the flaws in your views exposed.

29 Responses to “Response to a challenge”

  1. Jamal, I suggest that you continue the quotation from Izala Auham from the point where you have ended it and post the next three lines.

    Please also let us know if your Khalifa or some other responsible official or organ of your Jamaat is willing to endorse your response, and declare that they accept that the page of Izala Auham from which you have quoted correctly expresses the Promised Messiah’s claim. If you can get them to endorse this, you deserve more than the $1000 offered by Rashid Jahangiri.


  2. Partial quotes can be equally used to emphasize that Jamal does not believe in Allah because he says it with his own mouth:
     
    La ilaha [ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur rasul-ullah] i.e.
    There is no God [but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger]
     
    Such kind of out of context and partial quotation has a name –Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as “quoting out of context”. The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context (as all quotes are) per se, but to the quoter’s decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become “context” by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words. Comparing this practice to surgical excision, journalist Milton Mayer coined the term “contextomy” to describe its use by Julius Streicher, editor of the infamous Nazi broadsheet Der Stürmer in Weimar-era Germany. To arouse anti-semitic sentiments among the weekly’s working class Christian readership, Streicher regularly published truncated quotations from Talmudic texts that, in their shortened form, appear to advocate greed, slavery, and ritualistic murder. Although rarely employed to this malicious extreme, contextomy is a common method of misrepresentation in contemporary mass media, and studies have demonstrated that the effects of this misrepresentation can linger even after the audience is exposed to the original, in context, quote. [Wikipedia]
     
    How true. No matter how much efforts and corrections Maulana Muhammad Ali made to undo the Prophethood of HMGA for Qadiani Jamaat – effects of this misrepresentation linger even after the audience is exposed to the original, in context, quote.


     


  3. @Jamal:

    US$1000   is NOT a big deal to pay. But you have already accepted it that HMGA nowhere used phrase ‘Ummati-Nabi’. If he had used it, you would have provided the reference.

    As Dr. Zahid Aziz wrote:

    ”  If you can get them to endorse this, you deserve more than the $1000 offered by Rashid Jahangiri.”

    Yes, i will pay you more than $1000. Okay i will double the amount to $2000.

    But if you can NOT get them endorsed by your Qadiani Khalifa 5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad, then you only pay be $500/= How is this deal??       


  4. Rashid, if he can’t get his response endorsed by his Jamaat (i.e. by the khalifa or other spokesman or official organ), then his response fails altogether and it is the end of the matter.

    On the other hand, if he does get it endorsed, I am not suggesting that you pay the extra over $1000. I will make it up to $2000.


  5. @Ikram:

    You wrote word ‘Contextomy’ for Qadianis practice of creation of new word ‘Ummati-Nabi’. I think they are beyond that. I think they are guilty of NEOLOGISM. Its definition according to The Free Dictionary:
    ne·ol·o·gism
    //

    3. Psychology

    a. The invention of new words regarded as a symptom of certain psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia.


  6. @ Rashid – Neologism or Neolexia is further elaborated in Wikipedia:
     
    In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning. This is considered normal in children, but a symptom of thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness, such as schizophrenia) in adults. People with autism also may create neologisms. Additionally, use of neologisms may be related to aphasia acquired after brain damage resulting from a stroke or head injury.
     
    In theology, a neologism is a relatively new doctrine (for example, Transcendentalism). In this sense, a neologist is one who proposes either a new doctrine or a new interpretation of source material such as religious texts.

    “Ummati Nabi” [-a prophet from Ummah] is one such Qadiani neological construct that sustains their Khilafat. Historically, such inventions lead to formations of cults and sects. Qadiani doctrine cannot dissociate itself from either as proven by its track record.


  7. You had only asked to show you where “Ummati Nabi” had been used by the Promised Messiha (as), and I have shown you. It is against the “adab” of Islam to accuse me of wilfully presenting an incomplete reference. I only showed you what you asked for, no more, no less. If the Promised Messiah (as) had said: “I have a board which is black, and I write on it with chalk” and then we say he has a “blackboard”, no one in his right mind will say “He did not mean “blackboard”, he said “a board which is black” which is a totally different thing.”

    So kindly do not attack my integrity. You do not know me, and you cannot claim to know the intention in my heart. I have not come here to insult you, so kindly show a minimum of politeness towards me. Jazakumullah.

    Please read the following extracts of “Eik Ghalati ka Izalah”, where the Promised Messiah (a.s.) says why it is not correct to simply call him a Muhaddath and also why it is not correct to refuse to call him a Nabi:
     
    {Note from Admin: I have moved these extracts occurring here to this separate page due to their length.}

    If after this anyone has the audacity to continue to refuse to call him a Nabi and to continue to call him a simple Muhaddath, then he has clearly gone against what the promised Messiah (as) has said in this wonderfully clear book.


  8. Jamal, you say we have attacked your integrity without even knowing you. Now please re-read what you alleged about us at the end of your first comment:

    “You will probably not even let this post go through. I am not expecting you will have the sincerity to allow people to see the truth and to see the flaws in your views exposed.”

    Why did you expect a lack of sincerity from us? And, haven’t we now disproved this expectation of yours by publishing your comments?

    You could easily establish your integrity by quoting the next three lines as I asked. Of course, you could also add your own belief that the Promised Messiah was mistaken in saying in those lines that one who is “an ummati and a nabi” is a muhaddas. Instead of doing that, you are jumping ahead and trying to answer what you think is the question we would raise if you quoted those lines.

    If you say that the Promised Messiah later corrected himself, ten years later, in Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala, then let me remind you of what you wrote in your first comment. You wrote:

    “After such a clear reference, how can anyone with a sincere heart and who fears Allah claim that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not write that he is both Ummati and Nabi? If anyone asked him: “Are you an Ummati Nabi?” He would reply: “Yes, as I had written in Izala Auham.” “

    Well, if the Promised Messiah gave anyone this answer, then that person would go and read that reference in “Izala Auham” which is as follows. I begin with the words you quoted, and continue from there, using italics for clarity:

    “So the fact that he has been called a follower (Ummati) as well as a prophet (nabi) indicates that the qualities of both discipleship and prophethood will be found in him, as it is essential for both of these to be found in a muhaddas. The possessor of full prophethood, however, has only the quality of prophethood. To conclude, sainthood (muhaddasiyyat) is coloured with both colours. For this reason, in [the Divine revelations published in] Barahin Ahmadiyya too, God named this humble one as follower and as prophet.”

    It seems you were not aware of the “theory of change of claim in 1901” when you sent your first comment and therefore you said confidently that the Promised Messiah would have referred people to read “Izala Auham” to see his claim of being “ummati as well as nabi”.

    So your response to our challenge is this, that you can show that he did call himself “ummati nabi” (by saying “ummati as well as nabi”) but that while calling himself this, he gave an incorrect definition of what this terms means!


  9. It is indeed in a spirit of justice that you have allowed my comments to be posted here. May Allah reward you for it.

    My initial pessimism was due to the fact that a few years ago I had the experience of having some of my posts rejected, even though I never insulted anyone or used abusive language therein. Hence my pessimism.
    This is clearly not the case now, so I once again thank you for your spirit of fairplay.

    If I stopped short of including the next three lines of that quote from Izalah e Auham, it was not because I feared to reveal them. Not at all. As I had already said, your challenge was to show where the Promised Messiah (as) had said “Ummati Nabi”, and so I only showed that sentence where he (as) said that he is called “Ummati” and “Nabi”.

    The Promised Messiah (as) has clearly been saying that he is a Muhaddath, and as Ahmadis we fully adhere to that. A Muhaddath is one to whom Allah speaks. For example, when Allah says: “I am with you”, or “I am pleased with you” or “Allah has chosen you.” Such revelations were given to saints throughout the history of Islam. These are indeed cases where Allah speaks voluminously to some of His special servants.

    Such Ilhaam, however, does not contain a profusion of prophecies about the future, or in other words, Naba’. When a special person, dear to Allah, starts receiving a great profusion of this second type of revelation – information on future events – he then is termed a NABI, or one who receives NABA’.

    A Muhaddath does not receive this profusion of Naba’, and only receives words of comfort, such as “I am with you”, as mentioned above, and a relatively small amount of Naba’, as indeed ordinary believers receive some Naba’ in their dreams and, on occasion, in Ilhaam vouchsafed to them whenever Allah so wills.

    Tahdith refers to the phenomenon of receiving words of Ilhaam not containing prophecies, and Nubuwwah refers to another phenomenon of receiving a large quantity of revelations predicting future events.

    After the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), all people receiving a profusion of non-future-predicting Ilhaams are termed Muhaddatheen. On the other hand, those to whom Allah gives 1. the above-mentioned Muhaddath-type revelation AND 2. a profusion of revelations containing information on future events are called Anbiyaa’, in the Buruzi sense, for they cannot be raised independantly after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), and can only be raised as subordinate prophets due to their full obedience to and perfect affinity with the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa).

    This is why in Eik Ghalati Ka Izalah, the Promised Messiah (as) cautioned his followers against only calling him a Muhaddath. He is a Muhaddath + a Nabi + a Rasool, and this he has clearly explained in that book. Muhaddath, because Allah speaks to him in words containing no prophecies; Nabi because Allah speaks to him in a profusion of words containing prophecies; and Rasool because he is sent by Allah to mankind with a message. As he has himself explained, he is also Ummati, for he must have this quality in him; no one can be raised as a Nabi outside the Ummah.

    So, I hope you understand that we Ahmadis (of the Qadian main body) do NOT reject the fact that he is a Muhaddath, quite the contrary. But according to his own explanations, we also declare without fearing anyone that he is equally a non-lawbearing Nabi born within the Ummah, and a Rasool of Allah, in the sense that he himself has declared it.

    Due to the admonition he gave against simply saying that he is a Muhaddath, and against declaring that he is NOT a Nabi, we Ahmadis never deny that he is a Nabi and we never declare that he was only a Muhaddath. He was a Muhaddath, Nabi and Rasool.


  10. @Jamal Sahib:

    I take that you accept that HMGA NEVER used Phrase ‘Ummati Nabi’, and this term is created by you Qadianis BECAUSE OF YOUR UNDERSTANDING. Am i correct or not? Please answer. Thanks.

    In last paragraph of AGKI, written in 1901, by HMGA; he writes:

    “Hence the person who maliciously accuses me of claiming prophethood and messengership is a liar and evil-minded.”

    Please also tell me, why i should not consider you LIAR and EVIL-MINDED (in words of HMGA) just the way an opponent of HMGA is LIAR and EVIL-MINDED??

    I look forward to your replies. Please answer them. Thanks.
      


  11. When Jamal posted his first post since then I have been thinking that what would be his response when he will come to know that the writing of HMGA which he quoted is considered abrogated by his Jammat.

    Now he has given his response by referring us to Aik Ghalti Ka Izala. It took him just few days to abrogate the majority of HMGA’s writing. Iqbal rightly said about this type of attitude: Khud Badalte Naheen Quran ko Badal Deta Hain i.e., they do not change themselves but they do change Quran.

    One thing that comes to my mind is that most people in Qadiani Jammat do not even know the real beleifs of their Jammat. They hold our beliefs until they are confronted by us or someone else who knows the topic. Given this we can safely say that the number of people who hold LAM beliefs is more than the number of people who hold the Real qadiani beliefs.

    The Real Qadiani beliefs which is referred to above are that HMGA was a prophet but he did not know that he was a prophet so when people said to him that he is Kafir because he claims to be a prophet he wrongly said that he did not claim to be a prophet. He went to mosques and took oaths in front of crowd that he did not claim to be a prophet but in fact he was a prophet. He cursed any person who claims to be a prophet after Holy Prophet but in fact he was claiming to be a prophet himself. He lived most of his life under deceit because of not knowing that he was in fact a prophet. He said something else but meant something else. And then one day he accidently claimed to be a prophet and did not even apalogise to people for his previous mistake. Is it possible to persuade a person of rational mind to accept such a person who is full of such contradictions as a spiritual leader? I think NOT.


  12. For sequence, please note that I have published the last three comments above (Jamal, Rashid, Abid Aziz) simultaneously. Therefore, the last two contributors have not seen Jamal’s response above when they sent their comments.

    Note also that Jamal has delivered another little speech rather than replying to the points I had raised, which were as follows:

    Does he consider the Promised Messiah’s definition of “Ummati as well as Nabi” in that quote from Izala Auham to be incorrect?

    Does he still hold what he said in his first comment, that if anyone asked him: “Are you an Ummati Nabi?” He would reply: “Yes, as I had written in Izala Auham.”

    Much can be said in refutation of his invented theory in his last comment (that a muhaddas receives revelation but it doesn’t contain prophecies, and one who receives prophecies in his revelation can only be a prophet not muhaddas). Several quotes of the Promised Messiah can be presented which completely demolish these baseless assertions.


  13. Let us allow the Promised Messiah (as) to answer by himself. These answers from Eik Ghalati Ka Izalah are sufficient to clear up the matter:

    Had the Promised Messiah (as) been in front of us today, and we told him: “You are a Muhaddath”, he would reply: “If you say that [I] should be called Muhaddath, I would counter that no lexicon attributes to Tahdith the connotation of disclosure of the unseen, while Nubuwwat means the disclosure of the unseen…Since I have myself witnessed the clear fulfilment of about a hundred and fifty Divine prophecies, how can I deny for myself the title of Nabi or Rasul?”

    And if we said: “You claim to be a Nabi and Rasool like the Anbiyaa’ and Mursaleen of the past”, he would reply: “A person who maliciously accuses me of claiming prophethood and messengership is a liar and evil-minded. I have not brought an independent law nor am I an independent Prophet. I am a Messenger and Prophet only in the sense that I have received spiritual grace from the Messenger (sa) whom I follow, and, having received his name for myself, and through him, I have received knowledge of the unseen from God.”

    And then, if we said: “In the past, you have denied being a Prophet and Messenger, so how can you be a Prophet and Messenger now?” He would counter with: “I have not come with a new law. I have never denied being called a Nabi in this sense. Indeed it is in this very sense that God has addressed me as Nabi and Rasul; and it is in this sense that I do not deny being a Nabi or Rasul.”

    All these answers were taken from Eik Ghalati Ka Izalah. In these he clearly states that:
    1. No one should call him a simple Muhaddath.
    2. No one should call him a Nabi or Rasool of the type that the Anbiyaa’ and Mursaleen of the past used to be. Calling him that kind of Nabi or Rasool would be a malicious lie.
    3. No one should call him a law-bearing Prophet.
    4. He is a Buruzi Nabi and Rasool born within the Muslim Ummah.
    And in view of his previous claims of Muhaddathiyyah, we should say that he was a Muhaddath who was later on raised to the much higher status of Buruzi Nabi born in the Ummah.

    This is crystal clear. Every time he denied being a Nabi or Rasool it was ONLY:
    1. in the sense of being a law-bearing Prophet , and
    2. in the sense of being an independantly-raised Prophet.

    He was neither a law-bearing Prophet NOR raised independantly. He had no new law, and was raised only through the blessings of perfect obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa), something which had never occurred before in the past.
    Now, we must remember that when Prophets are for the first time told by Allah that they are Prophets, they are initially reluctant to accept such a heavy responsibility and their humility makes them reluctant to announce this in front of the people. We see the case of the Holy Prophet (sa). We see the case of Yahya (as) who, when asked “Are you Elijah?”, replies “No.”

    So, it is not surprising that initially the Promised Messiah (as) prefers to present only the lesser claim of Muhaddathiyyah which indeed contains the colours of both “Nubuwwah” and “Ummatiyyah” in it – meaning that it contains an element of revelations containing prophecies and also it requires perfect disciplehood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s.a.). However, when there was a great increase in the profusion of revelations containing prophecies in them, and because of being repeatedly called by Allah “Nabi” and “Rasool”, the Promised Messiah (as) had eventually to declare this to the people, along with the explanation that he was NOT claiming to the types of Nabi or Rasool that they had in mind.

    The bottom line is: Whatever his status is, we CANNOT CALL IT TAHDITH. He himself COUNTERED that notion. After he said he cannot be called a Muhaddath, how can we dare continue to present him as a simple Muhaddath?

    Dozens of quotes can be presented where he denies being a Nabi or Rasool, but every single time it is a denial ONLY in the sense of Tashri’iyyah (law-bringing) and Mustaqilliyyah (Independance in his raising). His denial was NEVER a blanket denial -only a denial of those two types of Nubuwwah and Risaalah.
     


  14. @Jamal. The key point that you may kindly enlighten us on is that whether you were aware of the so called abrogation theory at the time when you first posted a reference from Izala Auham? I guess you were not aware and if that is true then how did you travel from non-prophethood to prophethood. Did it take you just few days? Is it not mental bankruptcy?

    All I wrote above in my post is based on assumption that Jamal was not aware of the so called abrogation theory. If he in fact was aware of it then I have no shame in saying sorry to him. But at least he should say that he was aware of it.


  15. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote at the very beginning of Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala, as given in your (Jamal’s) Jamaat’s translation:

    “Some members of my Jama‘at, who are less familiar with my claim and its supporting arguments, and who have neither had the chance to study my books in depth, nor have they spent enough time in my company to be fully informed, sometimes counter an objection raised by an opponent with an answer which is entirely contrary to the facts. Thus, notwithstanding their adherence to the truth, they have to suffer embarrassment.”

    Please let us know whether this opening sentence means that by studying in depth his books published before Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala we can get correct familiarity with his claim.

    For example, again using your own Jamaat’s translation of Nishan-i Asmani (The Heavenly Sign, p. 52 of translation), we read:

    “I know with perfect certainty and it is my firm belief that our Prophet (sa) is Khatamul Anbiyya’. No Prophet, new or old, will come after him and not an iota or title of the Qur’an will be abrogated. Yes, Muhaddath will come, who have converse with Allah, the Exalted, and in whose persons certain characteristics of Perfect Prophethood are manifested. Indeed, in certain respects, they have the very grace and dignity of Prophethood, and I am one of them. But these religious clerics have failed to comprehend my reasoning.” (Bolding is mine)

    As to the reply that you say he would give today, saying that he cannot be called just muhaddas because this word does not have the connotation of disclosing the unseen, the questioner could say to him: But, sir, as late as August 1898 you wrote the following:

    “The Holy Quran says: ‘He [Allah] does not make His unseen known to anyone except a rasul whom He chooses’, i.e. to disclose unseen matters perfectly is only the work of those who are rasul; others are not given this status. By rasul are meant those persons who are sent from God the Most High, whether it is a nabi, or a rasul, or a muhaddas and mujaddid.” (Ayyam-us-Sulh, August 1898, p. 171, footnote)

    And, sir, in 1891 you had written, while announcing your claim to be Promised Messiah:

    “… there is no doubt that this humble one has come from God as a muhaddas for the Muslim nation, and a muhaddas is in one sense a prophet. Although he does not possess full prophethood, nonetheless in a partial sense he is a prophet because he has the honour of being spoken to by God, matters of the unseen are disclosed to him, and his revelation, like that of prophets and messengers, is protected from the interference of the devil.”
    (Tauzih Maram)

    If a muhaddas is not granted knowledge of matters of the unseen and prophecies, then how was it that the Promised Messiah was publishing prophecies since the 1880s, when his claim (even by your admission) was that of being a muhaddas? Why didn’t it occur to him at that time, while publishing prophecies so extensively (e.g. about Lekhram), that he could not be just a muhaddas?


  16. November 4th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
    From Muhammad Ali:

    @Jamal: I would just like to add/repeat some questions.

    1. What do you believe about Hazrat Sahib claim?
    a) He changed his claim first time in 1901.
    b) He changed his claim on some other time. Please let us know about that time.
    c) From start till end he remained consistent in his claim.

    2. Does Hazrat Sahib interpret his claim in totally a new way in the book Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala?
    a) Yes, this was the first time where he told the people about his claim of being a Prophet in a way in which he never told before.
    b) No in this book he reiterated his claim and tried to explain it. So there was no change of his claim.

    Please tell us what are the official answers of your Jamaat about the above questions. I have added the possible answers as options.
     


  17. Dear Abid Saheb, thank you for clearing up what you had said previously and for your apology, which is very honorable of you. Jazakumullah. To answer your question, yes, I was aware of the theory of “abrogation” you talk about. However, this term of “abrogation” is a very strong word. I would not use it. It does not convey the sense of what happened. The word “promotion” would be more appropriate. When the Promised Messiah (as) was a Muhaddath, and was then raised to the status of a Buruzi Nabi, he still possessed the essence of Muhaddathiyyah in him, just like in the Qur’an it is said that a prophet is also a Siddiq (“…Siddiqan Nabiyyaa”) and can also be at the same time a Salih (“…min as-Saaliheen”).

    The point put forward clearly by the Promised Messiah (as) is that his later rank surpassed that of a simple Muhaddath, and until he was sure of it and was repeatedly called Nabi and Rasool by Allah, he continued to say that he was a Muhaddath.

    Zahid Saheb, since a Muhaddath also receives a measure of revelations on the unseen, the Promised Messiah (as) initially did not find that surprising. As a Muhaddath, he would be receiving many revelations not containing prophecies and also SOME revelations containing prophecies.

    The difference between the Nabi and the Muhaddath is in the QUANTITY of prophetic revelations received. When the revelations passed a certain number, it became clear to him that he was more than a Muhaddath and was a kind of Nabi. Also, he was continuously being called Nabi and Rasool by Allah in many revelations. He knew that a Nabi like the ones in the past, of the Mustaqil or independantly raised typed, could never appear. But a non-lawbearing, Buruzi Nabi could appear, and this is what he claimed to be. This is how the problem of the title of Nabiullah given four times to the Messiah of the Latter Days in the Hadith of Sahih Muslim was also solved. He was called Nabiullah by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) himself. So he had to be a kind of Nabi. The mistake made by commonfolk is that when they hear the term “Nabi”, they immdeiately assume that it must be a kind of Nabi like those who appeared in the past. This is their grave mistake.

    However, it is a forgivable mistake in one sense, because no one knew that there was another type of Nabi, the Zilli or Buruzi type who could be raised through the wonderful blessings of the Holy Prophet (sa). But, people should however expect to see a Nabi of some sort, when they know that the Khatam-un-Nabiyyeen himself called him a Nabi. He never called the Messiah of the Latter Days a “Muhaddath”.

    So, to recapitulate:
    1. A Muhaddath receives non-prophetic revelations, and can indeed receive prophetic revelations, but much less than a Nabi does. To such a degree that even Arabic lexicons do not include receiving prophetic revelations in the definition of of Tahdith.
    2. A Nabi receives such a great profusion of prophetic revelations that this is itself the definition of being a Nabi.
    3. The Promised Messiah (as), at the end of his life, clearly said that he cannot be called a Muhaddath any longer.
    4. The Promised Messiah (as) denied being a lawbearing prophet, and he also denied being a Mustaqil, independantly raised, prophet.
    5. The Promised Messiah (as) claimed to be a Zilli, Buruzi Prophet, one who receives a great profusion of prophetic revelations, far greater than any Muhaddath, and one who is raised only due to his perfect disciplehood to Muhammad al-Mustafa (sa).

    So, no non-Ahmadi Muslim can accuse him of claiming to be a Prophet like those of the past, because he is NOT like them.

    And no-one can continue to call him a mere Muhaddath after he clearly declared that you CANNOT call the profusion of prophetic revelations he is receiving “Tahdith”. It is NO LONGER mere Thadith. It is Nubuwwah, of the kind mentioned above.

    When Allah calls him a Nabi, when the Holy Prophet (sa) calls him a Nabi, and when the Promised Messiah (as) calls himself a Nabi and says you can’t call him a Muhaddath, every obedient Ahmadi will also do the same.

    Now it is a question of correcting one’s past misunderstandings, and we must realise that some Buzurgs among his Sahaba may have been wrong in their interpretation. No Sahabi is infallible, and we cannot put their opinion above the opinion of Allah, the Holy Prophet (sa) and the Promised Messiah (as) himself.

    This question of Tahdith and Nubuwwah is of course a difficult one to grasp. But once we sit down and place all the explanations of the Promised Messiah (as) in front of us, we can see that he never denies Nubuwwah in all its types. He only denies two types of it. And he claims to possess a third type of it. And he maintains his claim to Muhaddathiyyah as long as the number of prophetic revelations was relatively low. When the frequency rose above that number, and he kept on being called Nabi and Rasool by Allah, he then understood that his status had been raised to the much higher rank of a Zilli Nabi born in the Muslim Ummah.

    I said “promotion” earlier on, because it gives a good idea of what happened. It was like a Major who was writing books and signing them as a Major, and denying that he was a General. As a Major, he would have many powers in the army, but not all the powers of a General.

    However, later on he is promoted to the rank of General. Now if people come to him and continue to call him “Major”, what will he tell them? He will say: “Can you say that a person with all these powers is only a Major? I am now a General.”

    So, no-one can reject the fact that the Promised Messiah (as) was at one point a Muhaddath. But he was promoted to Nabi, but not a Nabi as wrongly understood by the common people of Islam.


  18. Mr Jamal Khan, you have not answered my question about the opening sentence of Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala. Does he mean that his followers would have acquired correct familiarity with his claim if they had study his previous books in depth?

    You write: “Now it is a question of correcting one’s past misunderstandings, and we must realise that some Buzurgs among his Sahaba may have been wrong in their interpretation. No Sahabi is infallible, and we cannot put their opinion above the opinion of Allah, the Holy Prophet (sa) and the Promised Messiah (as) himself.”

    By misinterpretation of some buzurgs among his Sahaba, are you referring to the interpretation of the Qadiani Jamaat leaders as expressed in Mirza Mahmud Ahmad sahib’s writings about Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala? Please see this link where his interpretation of this pamphlet is quoted.

    You have said earlier in the above comment: “However, this term of “abrogation” is a very strong word. I would not use it. It does not convey the sense of what happened.” But the Qadiani Jamaat elders believe the following, as expressed by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad sahib in a book: “It is proved that the references dating prior to the year 1901 in which he has denied being a prophet, are now abrogated (mansukh) and it is an error to use them as evidence.” Therefore I want to know whether you consider this to a misinterpretation of some buzrugs among his Sahaba?

    I am sorry to say that your analogy of a major promoted to general is entirely inapplicable here. All the time when the major believed that he was a major, he was correct in believing this, and he was actually a major. When he announced to people that he was now promoted to general, he could not write that people should read his past announcements about what his rank is, and he could not criticise people for denying previously that he was a general.


  19. Dear Zahid Saheb
    I am sorry that I did not grasp what you meant by “abrogation”; I thought you meant that his Muhaddathiyyah had been “abrogated” and replaced by Nubuwwah. That would be a strong word to describe this elevation in rank.
    What is abrogated is references from those texts where the Promised Messiah appears to deny prophethood in all its types, because at the time he only knew of the OLD types: lawbearing and independantly raised. At that time, he could not see himself as more than a Muhaddath. When he later realised that he was in fact a Nabi due to the profusion of prophetic revelations and due to being called a Nabi by Allah Himself, he then declared he WAS a prophet, but of a third type, the Zilli, Buruzi type.
    When he has later clarified his position, why now insist on producing evidence from books written prior to that? It will do nothing but add to the confusion IF not viewed in the correct light. The older books contain his denial of being a lawbearing or mustaqil prophet. None of them contain a denial of his being a Buruzi prophet.
    I also have two questions, if I may:
    1. In Eik Ghalati Ka Izalah, he clearly states that you cannot call his rank “Tahdith”. After that, how can anyone still call him a mere Muhaddath? Can anyone answer this for me please?
    To me it is clear-cut: He was first a Muhaddath, then was told he was a Nabi and Rasool, not like those of the past, but of a third type, the Zilli, Buruzi type. And he expressly said that we cannot now call him a Muhaddath, because he is now a Nabi and Rasool who receives a profusion of prophetic revelations.
    2. Also, the Prophet (sa) refrained from calling him a Muhaddath, and instead called him a Nabi repeatedly. Have you got any comments on this?
    Jazakumullah for this intellectually stimulating discussion.


  20. @Jamal Sahib:

    ”   This is crystal clear. Every time he denied being a Nabi or Rasool it was ONLY:
    1. in the sense of being a law-bearing Prophet , and
    2. in the sense of being an independantly-raised Prophet. ”

    Again Qadianis create their OWN TERMS and their OWN MEANINGS.

    Basically, Jamal is saying that “IN TERMINOLOGY OF SHARIAT, ‘NABI’ MEANS OR ‘RASOOL’ MEANS SOMEONE WHO CAN BE A NON-LAW-BEARING AND DEPENDENT PROPHET”. 

    Jamal, did i correctly understand you??

    A Professor of Arabic, Islamic Studies, author of many books, that are taught at Masters Level University courses in Pakistan, has written a book explaining the term ‘Nabi’ in Shariat Terminology. This professor was former ‘Waqaf-e-Zindghi’ educated in Qadian and Rabwah. There he learned Arabic Grammar and diction etc. This book he especially wrote for Qadiani readers. If Jamal wants to read this book, he can email his mailing address to Dr. Zahid Aziz. I will arrange delivery of book to him.

    The book points out: In SHARIAT TERMINOLOGY WHEN A WORD ‘NABI’ IS USED, IT HAS TO BE USED FOR A PERSON WHO BRINGS HIS OWN ‘SHARIAT’ (Law-bearing prophet). THAT PERSON IS ALWAYS INDEPENDENT ‘NABI’ (Prophet). There is NO such thing as ‘Ghair-Shari Nabi’ (Non-Law-Bearing prophet).  It is ‘Sufia-Terminology’ l (Mysticism-Terminology) that there is such term. So when a person claims he is NON-law-bearing prophet, he is claiming prophethood is MYSTIC SENSE. Period.

    Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement people have NO problem in accepting HMGA claim of “prophet-hood” in MYSTIC SENSE. Remember: HMGA even claimed to be Allah (God) in Mystic sense. 

    It is very interesting to see that Qadianis FIND problem with HMGA when he claims to be Allah. And they always clarify that HMGA meant Allah in ‘Sufi-terms’ (Tasawaf). But Qadianis do NOT find problem in changing word ‘Nabi’ used in ‘sufi-terms’ to ‘Sharia-terms’!!                  


  21. @Jamal Khan:
     
    Plot Thickens!
     
    Jamal writes:
     
    “The difference between the Nabi and the Muhaddath is in the QUANTITY of prophetic revelations received. When the revelations passed a certain number, it became clear to him that he was more than a Muhaddath and was a kind of Nabi.”
     
    Questions:
     
    Who decides ‘prophetic revelations’ have crossed the THRESHOLD HOLD LEVEL???
     
    Why only Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his followers hold this decision making authority??
     
    Jamal writes:
     
    “However, it is a forgivable mistake in one sense, because no one knew that there was another type of Nabi, the Zilli or Buruzi type who could be raised through the wonderful blessings of the Holy Prophet (sa). But, people should however expect to see a Nabi of some sort, when they know that the Khatam-un-Nabiyyeen himself called him a Nabi. He never called the Messiah of the Latter Days a “Muhaddath”.”
     
    Question:
     
    Why native speakers of Arabic did NOT invent this new type of terminology??
     
    Why only native Punjabi speakers better know Arabic Lexicon then Arabs themselves??
     
    Jamal writes:
     
    “This question of Tahdith and Nubuwwah is of course a difficult one to grasp. But once we sit down and place all the explanations of the Promised Messiah (as) in front of us, we can see that he never denies Nubuwwah in all its types. He only denies two types of it. And he claims to possess a third type of it.”
     
    Now cat is out of the bag. Nobody but only Qadianis will grasp this DIFFICULT concept. With this much problem, how Qadianis can even think of convincing non-Qadiani Muslims of buying their bull!!
     
    Dude! A woman is either pregnant or she is not a pregnant.
     
    But I guess in Qadiani logic, even a male homo-sapien can become pregnant. Just like my male schizophrenic patient who delivered seven babies two weeks after start of Zyprexa.
     
    Qadianis modus operandi: Create their own terminology and their own meaning and then themselves getting convinced. Did I say, these are symptoms of a Psychotic person??
     


    @Jamal:
    You wrote:

    “I said “promotion” earlier on, because it gives a good idea of what happened. It was like a Major who was writing books and signing them as a Major, and denying that he was a General. As a Major, he would have many powers in the army, but not all the powers of a General.

    However, later on he is promoted to the rank of General. Now if people come to him and continue to call him “Major”, what will he tell them? He will say: “Can you say that a person with all these powers is only a Major? I am now a General.” ”

    NOW JAMAL, BASICALLY YOU’RE SAYING HMGA WAS LUNATIC, CRAZY AND PSYCHOTIC PERSON (nauzubila). As he was doing the job of a General, while all the time he kept believing that he was a simple Major!!

    FYI: HMGA has written, that if a person is given a DIVINE APPOINTMENT and he does NOT understand his status then it can only be said about him that he is LUNATIC, CRAZY, AND PSYCHOTIC.

    Qadianis for God sake, don’t get in to the trap of ENEMIES of HMGA (that includes HMGA Children and his opponents) and start convincing readers that he was a Psychotic person (nauzubilah).


  22. 1. According to Jamal word “abrogation” is too strong. Dr. Zahid Aziz has already given one reply. What I want to point out is that Mirza Mehmood Ahmad has not only used word abrogation but he also used the word dhoka i.e, deceit. According to him HMGA was in a deceit before 1901.

    2. Jamal have you seen a major who keeps telling people that he is a major but people keep telling him no you are not a major but you are a general. And then one day the same major tells people ‘yes you were correct in calling me a general. I was in fact a general but I thought I was a major by mistake’. Such a major deserves a place in mental assylum.


  23.  
    Essence of Jamal Khan posts and dilemmas faced by him
     
    1-Jamal accepts that HMGA NOWHERE in his writings used phrase ‘Ummati-Nabi’. And this phrase is used by him/Qadianis because of his/their understanding of HMGA writings.
     
    If Jamal/Qadianis acknowledges it then truth is too painful for him/Qadianis to bear.
     
    2-Jamal/Qadianis accepts HMGA NEVER used word ‘nabi’ for himself in Sharia-Terminology; otherwise he/they will become LIAR and EVIL-MINDED (in words of HMGA).
     
    If Jamal/Qadianis accepts this then his/their whole demand of “belief in HMGA prophet-hood” as a requirement for a Muslim becomes invalid.
     
    3-Jamal/Qadianis never accepts that HMGA used word ‘nabi’ for himself in Sufi-Terminology; otherwise he/they will become Lahori-Ahmadis.
     
    If Jamal/Qadianis accepts this then whole business of Qadiani-Khilafat is flushed down the toilet.
     
    4-Jamal/Qadianis believe that HMGA created NEW KIND of meaning for word ‘nabi’(that he calls a DIFFICULT concept); and based on this new meaning he/they find justified in NOT offering funeral (Janazah) prayers and prayers for and behind non-Qadiani-Muslims (including Lahori-Ahmadis).
     
    If Jamal/Qadianis accepts this then he/they has/have no reason to justify non-Qadiani-Muslims to consider him/they a Muslim, even thou he/they does not consider them to be Muslims.
     
    5-Jamal/Qadianis have created a NEW meaning of word ‘nabi’ which is neither a word of pure Sharia-Terminology, nor a word of pure Sufi-Terminology; and NOT supported by Arabic Lexicons and Grammar.
     
    If Jamal/Qadianis accepts this then he/they find it impossible to convince Arab and non-Arabs that how a Punjabi speaking person can be appreciated for pulling out of thin air new meaning of a word, in DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY, totally alien to native speakers, readers, and writers of Arabic language.
     
    Unfortunately, like Christians, Qadianis too are always in dilemma on how to justify the fundamental flaw in their belief. And like Christians, Qadianis too keep on manufacturing justifications to support the innate flaw in their belief system.
     


  24. Brothers, I do not at all like the tone of your replies. Your mocking replies do not contribute to this discussion in any way. You keep on using words like psychotic, mental asylum, etc. This is a childish attitude and you should be ashamed of misbehaving in this way with a person of my age. Your attitude is hurtful and saddening whilst claiming to follow the Imam Mahdi (a.s.). If you have to be impolite to win an argument, that only shows how insecure you are.
    I can see that you are not open for discussing things that for you appear to be written on stone. You are welcome to hold on to your views.
    I believe that Maulvi Muhammad Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) had changed his views after the death of the Promised Messiah (a.s.) and that he made a mistake of ijtihad. Hadrat Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (may Allah be pleased with him) was the son of the Promised Messiah (a.s.) and I have always wondered why you people have so much hatred for the holy children of the Imam Mahdi (a.s.). If the Promised Messiah (a.s.) were present in your meetings where you are saying terrible things about his own son, how how do you think he would feel?
    If the great prophecy of the Promised Son, in your opinion, has not been fulfilled, did the Promised Messiah (a.s.) therefore make a false prophecy, after having prayed for 40 days in Hoshiarpur, begging Allah to show a sign as requested by the leaders of the Arya Samaj? God forbid.
    The way of cursing at and maligning the children and family of those sent by Allah is the way of the Shi’as and Jews, and it does not behove Ahmadis to partake of such foul activities.
    Remember what the Promised Messiah (a.s.) said:
    “God has conveyed to me that there would be a great split in my Movement as well, and mischief makers and those who are the slaves of their own desires will depart… It will be the time of my Promised Son. God has decreed these events in connection with him… Be sure to recognize the Promised Son.” (Tadhkirah, pp. 1066-1067)

    Those who persist in misinterpreting the Promised Messiah (a.s.)’s writings and maligning his children will little by little see their blessings depart. They will start missing their daily prayers; their women-folk will start exposing their beauty more and more; their children will continuously marry out of their community and will be increasingly lost to the True Islam; their chandas will become more and more nominal, and they will have to close down their buildings and meeting-places for lack of funds; hatred, mockery and jealousy will increase in their hearts against each other; and their numbers will go on stagnating and eventually start to dwindle; less and less people among them will wish to dedicate their lives wholly for the task of spreading Islam; their lack of true leadership will lead them to many internal disputes and dissensions; and God’s grace will slip away from them day by day.
    In stark contrast, those who correctly interpret the Promised Messiah (a.s.)’s teachings and honour and respect his children and family, will see the exact opposite of the above happening to them.
    I leave it to you to decide which group – the one losing its blessings or the one whose blessings are increasing – you belong.
    Was-Salaamu ‘alaa man ittaba’al huda.


  25. After reading the “rescue” of HMGA at the hands of Qadiani doctrine, Stephen Hawking comes to mind. He states:

    Elegance refers to the form of a theory, but it is closely related to a lack of adjustable elements, since a theory jammed with fudge factors is not very elegant.…when a model is found lacking, people still often don’t abandon the model but instead attempt to save it through modifications. Although physicists are indeed tenacious in their attempts to rescue theories they admire, the tendency to modify a theory fades to the degree that the alterations become artificial or cumbersome, and therefore “inelegant.” [The Grand Design, Copyright 2010 by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow]

    Similar to the physicists above, Qadianis are trying to rectify the “inelegance” of HMGA into “elegance.” They are trying to make a case for a prophet from the ashes of self-serving doctrine of Mirza Mahmud. Once one reads their arguments, it becomes clear that their arguments are more “elegant” than Mirza Mahmud who in turn seems even “elegant” than HMGA himself. It is plain ridiculous that the followers understood the “message” more than the “messenger” himself. This is a slave mentality where a colored slave is even more “whiter” than the master. The Qadiani arguments are patch after patch to shore up their blind fellowship of none but Khalifas of Rabwah, yet they perceive it not. It is ironic that they are followers of a “General” who never understood the battle order that he wrote with his own hands. Who is more confused, the General or the Troops? In all this what they fail to understand is that they are making Quran and Muhammad “inelegant”:

    5:3. …This day have I perfected for you your faith and completed My blessings upon you and have chosen Islam for your religion…

    33:40. Muhammad is no father to any man among you but (he is rather) the Messenger of Allâh and the Seal of the Prophets. Indeed Allâh has full knowledge of all things.

    What Qadianis are telling us is that Islam of Quran as conveyed by Muhammad is not-perfected, hence it needed an Ummati Nabi. Since Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets, hence by Heavenly design he is no father to any man [note – the male gender] so that no self-conceited son may draw any mileage out of his ancestry, that factually Mirza Mahmud did.
     
    Out of love for their religious head, the followers are forced to expect the attributes and actions of the progeny of the same level as that the divine himself. We see that in all the religious orders and sects. In Islam the shias do the same to daughter instead of a son of Muhammad that did not survive him. By extension, Ali is then lifted to that level by his marriage to prophet’s daughter, which gives them some justification of a male in the inheritance chain. I am not challenging the Qadianis for their love of a divine – HMGA, but I do question them about their similar facade of Khandan-e-Khilafat (the family of Khalifas) and the polemic of Muhaddat-Nabi-Rasul that this Khandan thrives upon.


  26. Well, as you can see, Jamal is now reduced to spewing out the heart burning that members of the Qadiani Jamaat have inside them and what they are taught.

    Nonetheless, I shall comment on the points he raised in his comment before this one (beginning “Dear Zahid Saheb”).

    My question to him was: Hasn’t the Promised Messiah said right at the beginning of Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala that his followers would have acquired correct familiarity with his claim if they had study his previous books in depth?

    His reply is that reading his previous books to understand his claims “will do nothing but add to the confusion IF not viewed in the correct light”.

    I will leave readers to judge his reply, and how opposite his advice is to what the Promised Messiah stated.

    Now that he has given us his beliefs about Mirza Mahmud Ahmad sahib being the Promised Son, let us look at his master’s views about the change in claim from his book that I referred to earlier. See: http://ahmadiyya.org/noclaim/gh-intro.htm He writes that before 1901 “while all the characteristics of prophethood were found in him, he refrained from calling himself a prophet” because he had the wrong definition of ‘prophet’ in his mind, but he was actually a prophet before 1901. This is clearly at variance with Jamal’s explanation that before 1901 he was a muhaddas and not a prophet, and in 1901 his status was elevated to prophet.

    Jamal has asked me two questions.

    “1. In Eik Ghalati Ka Izalah, he clearly states that you cannot call his rank “Tahdith”. After that, how can anyone still call him a mere Muhaddath?”

    He called himself ‘muhaddas’ even after 1901 and regarded the status of ‘muhaddas’ as the highest that a Muslim could attain. For example, I refer to his article in the Urdu edition of The Review of Religions, April 1904, entitled “The Blessings of Islam”, about the highest blessings one can attain by following the Holy Prophet. He writes:

    “When a person reaches this stage, he is no more a man of this world, and is granted the guidance and high place granted to the holy prophets and messengers of God before him, as if he were their image. 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.

    The sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad indicate that a muhaddas is potentially a prophet and if the door of prophethood had not been closed, every muhaddas possessed in himself the power and capability to become a prophet. It is according to this power and capability that it is allowable to apply the word nabi to a muhaddas. That is, we can say: the muhaddas is a prophet. … It is this application that Allah indicates by shortening the Quranic reading ‘We did not send before you any rasul or nabi or muhaddas’ to the reading ‘We did not send before you any rasul or nabi’ and considering just these words to be sufficient.” (p. 117-118).

    I have placed these two pages of Urdu writing at this link.

    His second question is: “2. Also, the Prophet (sa) refrained from calling him a Muhaddath, and instead called him a Nabi repeatedly. Have you got any comments on this?”

    My comments are simply to quote what the Promised Messiah wrote about this:

    “A sign of the coming Promised Messiah, which is written, is that he shall be a prophet (nabi) of God, meaning one who receives revelation from God. However, full and complete prophethood is not meant here because that has been sealed. Rather, that prophethood is meant which is limited to the significance of muhaddasiyya, which obtains light from the lamp of the prophethood of Muhammad.” (Izala Auham, September 1891, p. 701)

    “In ‘Sahih Muslim’ there is a hadith about this, namely, that the Messiah shall come as a ‘nabi’ of God. Now if, in a symbolic sense, by ‘Messiah’ or ‘son of Mary’ is meant a member of the Muslim community who holds the rank of ‘muhaddas’, then no difficulty arises.” (Izala Auham, p. 586)

    “The name ‘prophet of God’ for the Promised Messiah, which is to be found in Sahih Muslim etc. from the blessed tongue of the Holy Prophet, is meant in the same metaphorical sense as that in which it occurs in Sufi literature as an accepted and common term for the recipient of Divine communication. Otherwise, how can there be a prophet after the Khatam al-anbiya?” (Anjam Atham, footnote, pages 27–28)

    The fact is that it was the Promised Messiah’s opponents who used to put to him that the Messiah was called ‘nabi’ in Hadith, and therefore he could not be the Messiah. And he used to give replies like those quoted above, that ‘nabi’ in that hadith is used metaphorically for a muhaddas.

    It doesn’t seem to strike members of the Qadiani Jamaat that the Messiah in the hadith prophecies is not only called ‘nabi’, but he is of course called Isa Ibn Maryam. The Holy Prophet not only “refrained from calling him a Muhaddath” (as Jamal says) he also refrained from calling him “Promised Messiah” or the like of the Messiah and referred to him as Jesus son of Mary. Again, this is an argument of the opponents of the Promised Messiah, that the coming Messiah must be Isa himnself in person because the Holy Prophet calls him Isa Ibn Maryam.

    The most interesting thing Jamal has written is the following in one of his earlier comments:

    “No Sahabi is infallible, and we cannot put their opinion above the opinion of Allah, the Holy Prophet (sa) and the Promised Messiah (as) himself.”

    This also means that no khalifa is infallible. It means that if an Ahmadi concludes that the opinion of a khalifa (or other great person in the movement) is in conflict with “the opinion of Allah, the Holy Prophet (sa) and the Promised Messiah (as) himself”, and despite trying he cannot reconcile the khalifa’s opinion with what Allah, the Holy Prophet, and the Promised Messiah have taught, then he must reject the opinion of the khalifa. I hope members of the Qadiani Jamaat are aware of and follow this principle.


  27. @Jamal Khan sahib:
     
    “Brothers, I do not at all like the tone of your replies. Your mocking replies do not contribute to this discussion in any way. You keep on using words like psychotic, mental asylum, etc. This is a childish attitude and you should be ashamed of misbehaving in this way with a person of my age.”
     
    Jamal sahib, your problem is with HMGA. It was he who FIRST used term PSYCHOTIC for a person who gets divine appointment and he does not realize what his status is. And now you say that HMGA did not realize his status. All along he was “general” but he kept thinking he was just a “major”. Please also tell us where PSYCHOTIC people live??
     
    Jamal sahib, I don’t know your age. And my comments are based on your writings and your logic. For me age is immaterial, as long as person is not a minor. By the way, currently I am specializing in a branch of Psychiatry called Geriatric-Psychiatry. It is diagnosis and treatment of Psychiatric patients who are at least a second over age 65 years. And my youngest patient is 68 years old. Does it mean older people cannot develop psychotic symptoms?? I am glad we are discussing HMGA status with a senior Qadiani Jamaat person, at least in terms of age, this way young Qadianis can see and realize that what their elders have been telling them cannot stand more than three cross arguments of Lahori-Ahmadis. Thank you for coming to this forum.
     
    “If the Promised Messiah (a.s.) were present in your meetings where you are saying terrible things about his own son, how how do you think he would feel?”
     
    Jamal sahib, I am sure if HMGA was sitting in our meetings, he would be VERY HAPPY to see what is going on. He would said, “My prophecy came true. Remember I said that I am like of Nuh (AS) and Lut (AS). I said it way back 100 years ago, because Allah SWT told me then that your wife, sons and daughter are like wives and children of Nuh (AS) and Lut (AS). THIS IS PROOF OF MY TRUTHFULNESS”.
     
    “If the great prophecy of the Promised Son, in your opinion, has not been fulfilled, did the Promised Messiah (a.s.) therefore make a false prophecy, after having prayed for 40 days in Hoshiarpur, begging Allah to show a sign as requested by the leaders of the Arya Samaj? God forbid.”
     
    Jamal sahib, why should we say that HMGA could NOT ‘BIOLOGICALLY FATHER’ his Promised Son, when he himself wrote in letter to Maulana Noor Ud Din sahib after Biologically Fathering Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his siblings: THE CHARACTER AND LOOKS OF MY WIFE (i.e. Mother of Qadiani Khalifa 2) ARE NOT THE ONE WHO CAN BEAR ME A PROMISED SON.  BTW: we Lahori-Ahmadis think that person who will become Promised Son could come from the future biological generations of HMGA or he could be just his SPIRITUAL SON!!
     
    “The way of cursing at and maligning the children and family of those sent by Allah is the way of the Shi’as and Jews, and it does not behove Ahmadis to partake of such foul activities.”
     
    Jamal sahib, is it acceptable to you if Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in his speeches and writings have been calling Lahori-Ahmadis as “Paighamis” and “Rotten peels of bananas and oranges” and “Pantree (#35)” to Professor Chuadhry Ghulam Rasool sahib?? Now when tables are turned and internet has brought to day light the ugly utterances of Qadiani Khalifa 2 for everyone to see, that all of a sudden you have started giving us lecture on ethics!! Why don’t you give this lecture to your fellow Qadianis and ask them to remove all such nonsense from your Qadiani Khalifa 2 “holy books”??
     
    “God has conveyed to me that there would be a great split in my Movement as well, and mischief makers and those who are the slaves of their own desires will depart… It will be the time of my Promised Son. God has decreed these events in connection with him… Be sure to recognize the Promised Son.” (Tadhkirah, pp. 1066-1067)”
     
    Jamal sahib, Qadianis have NO shame. Qadianis LIE. There is NO book titled ‘Tadhkirah’ or ‘Tazkira’ by HMGA!! Understand that. Please. Don’t convince readers that you do actually have some psychiatric problem.
     
    Jamal sahib, to answer your rant in last paragraph, I would ask you to read what HMGA has written. He wrote that those who are not opposing us, though they may not have done my bait, are MY FOLLOWERS. Now obviously these MILLIONS of Muslims cannot be Qadianis, because Qadianis require bait of their Qadiani Khalifa. On the other hand what HMGA wrote is followed by Lahori-Ahmadis. So all these MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS, especially in Europe, and many thousands of Mosques belong to them, so they ALL are Lahori-Ahmadis, per HMGA!! I hope it is clear to you. I will advise you please listen to LAST SPEECH of Qadiani “Khalid-bin-Waleed” Abdur Rehman Khadim Gujrati. He made it on annual jalsa in Rabwah in 1956. It is saved in audio archives of Qadiani record. After that speech he had stroke (paralysis/ falij) and he was bed ridden and he could not make any other speech. In that speech he said exactly what you’re saying, in addition to using rude language for Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib.
     
    Jamal sahib, please don’t forget it was ‘WAQAF-E-ZINDGHI’ AND STAUNCH FOLLOWERS OF QADIANI KHALIFA 2 MIRZA MAHMUD AHMAD WHO ACCUSED HIM OF THE WORST KIND OF MORAL CRIMES, BEYOND IMAGINATION. And these accusations did NOT happen once. Almost every 10 years a new group of STAUNCH QADIANIS were repeating such accusations!
     
    Jamal sahib, before you leave us on this forum, please tell us: ARE YOU RUNNING AWAY FROM YOUR REPLY TO CHALLENEGE where HMGA wrote phrase ‘Ummati-Nabi’?


  28. While advocating for their Jamaat, Qadianis have inadvertently equated themselves to the tomb-keepers of Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan. In a tomb-keeper mentality they too are self-deluded that their numerical size as compared to others, in this case Lahoris, in itself qualifies them to be the sole righteous. Now, that is a lame lame argument. If numbers matter then by sheer numbers Shias, Wahabis, Barelvis, Sunnis etc [by the way Lahoris are Sunnis] are more righteous. They all can be counted in hundreds of millions. Who is more righteous then, Qadianis or Sunnis? In such comparison, the Qadianis will fall back to the crippled excuse that they are an enlightened minority. Not for a moment this contradiction crosses their minds when they use their numbers and similar arguments towards Lahoris. For Qadianis their sole merit is none but being born in a Qadiani household, which in turn has no value in Quran:
     
    5:104. …They say, `Sufficient for us is that (tradition) whereon we have found our forefathers.’ What! (would they follow them blindly) even though their forefathers had no knowledge whatsoever and had no guidance?
     
    Qadianis are sulking in isolation from claims of “prophet-hood” that none accepted outside their own families and now they find refuge with blinders under the shadow of Khilafat for self consolation. That’s not the case with Lahoris. They take HMGA as a reformer of the age and draw their reformed energy from Quran and Muhammad without kiss-up to a Khalifa. It is the Lahore literature and school of thought that is inevitably and without any apology is seeping into the mainstream Islam thought. Al-Azhar, which despite having burnt Ahmadi books in early part of last century is now certifying Muhammad Ali’s works. The main stream Sunni scholar Ghamdi, a former member of Jamaat Islami references from Lahori literature. The firebrand Zakir Naik is factually plagiarizing Abdul Haq Vidhyarti.  Sher Ali and Yusuf Ali wrote their translations and commentary of Quran under the tutelage of Muhammad Ali in Lahore. Pickthall and Muhammad Asad followed in footsteps of Muhammad Ali which is evident by their Quran works. MH Shakir took it even further, he plagiarized the whole translation and commentary of Quran by Muhmmad Ali. Sir Shahnawaz Khan even named his son and current Imam of Ismailis, Sadr-ud-din Kareem Agha Khan after Sadr-ud-din, the second Amir of Lahoris. With the exception of Sher Ali, none of them gives credit to the source of spring of it all i.e. HMGA, only and only because of Qadiani dogma. They all have no problem with HMGA as a Mujaddid. No self-respecting Muslim can swallow the “Ummati Prophet-hood” nor gulp down the Khilafat of Qadian and still call him/herself a Muslim.
     
    On the practical side, Qadianis fundamentally cannot convert any intelligent non-Muslism to Islam, nor can they make themselves acceptable to the general body of Muslims. It is their baggage of “prophet-hood” that is the first and foremost hindrance, which is then topped with the merit-less allegiance to Khalifas of Rabwah. No potential candidate is going to accept the nonsense of the Qadiani polemic while reciting Kalima Shahada. Islam cannot be that complicated with layer upon layers of nothing but excuses, abrogations, justifications, explanation and apologies of Qadianis. Their Khalifas have robbed them of any chance to influence other Muslims. Muhammad even led funeral prayers of Abdullah-bin-Ubbai, but a Qadiani will not even stand in such a prayer of a non-Qadiani relative, what to talk of a neighbor. Quran allows marriage of Muslims to non-Muslims (verse 5:5), but Qadianis need permission from their Khalifa to marry non-Qadiani Muslims. To them the word of Khalifa has more value than Quran or Sunnah of Muhammad. If Umar-bin-Khattab can be interrupted in his Friday Sermon for his seemingly unawareness of dowry rights of women, then why can’t the Rabwah Khalifas be asked about their shortcomings? Qadianis need to wake up to reality. They are following the fantasies of their Khalifas and in the process side stepping, HMGA, Prophet Muhammad PBUH and the Quran.


  29. You of all people should be ashamed of your selves.What progress does this bring to Islam?.You all among mankind who accused Allah of having a son and Mary is worthy of worship,and that does not mean anything to you people?.If Allah cannot have a son without a consort.How can Mary?.It is not written in the scriptures {Holy Quran /Holy Bible}Jesus is the son of John The Baptist and Mary.\for more information visit http://www.jesussonofjohn.com


Leave a Reply