The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

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

October 18th, 2012

Pakistan National Assembly Proceedings of 1974 against Ahmadis

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

Change in Qadiani beliefs inside National Assembly in 1974

Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad CHANGED HIS BELIEFS inside the secret proceedings of Pakistan National Assembly.

While reading testimony of marhoom Abdul Manan Omar sahib in the recently published Pakistan National Assembly proceedings I came across interesting information that was provided by Pakistan’s Attorney General Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar to Abdul Manan Omar sahib.

On page 1699 and 1700 Yahya Bakhtiar informs Abdul Manan Omar that Qadianis Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad HAS AMENDED, I REPEAT, AMENDED THEIR DEFINITION OF KAFIR. By the word ‘Kafir’ they mean ‘sinner’ JUST LIKE BELIEF OF LAHORI-AHMADIS.

In reply Abdul Manan sahib said, “since it was secret proceedings, so we will appreciate if you could give us more information. We will be thankful”.

In reply Yahya Bakhitar says, “it will not be secret forever. It will become public in some time”.

Further in reply Abdul Manan Omar sahib said, “if Qadianis make couple of more AMMENDMENTS in their beliefs, they will become your and our Muslim brothers”.


Publication of 1974 reports will have long term benefits for Muslim Ummah. Two immediate will be:

1-Muslims will come to know what a great injustice was done to Lahori-Ahmadis by secular politician Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, just to appease Mullah-Mafia in Pakistan.

2-Qadianis will come to know that their Qadiani Khalifas have been DECEIVING them since 1974. They will know QK 3 and 4 CHANGED THEIR BELIEFS INSIDE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND TRIED TO ADOPT LAHORI-AHMADIS BELIEFS, to save their skin. Exactly the way QK2 did in 1953 in Munir Inquiry Commission. Qadianis will come to realize their QK3 was lying when he said, “if report publishes half of Pakistan will become Ahmadi (Qadiani)”; and QK4 was lying when he said, “not half, all of Pakistan will become Ahmadi (Qadiani)”.

Publication of this report WILL ONLY BENEFIT Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement representation of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib’s beliefs and claims.


238 Responses to “Pakistan National Assembly Proceedings of 1974 against Ahmadis”

  1. Proceedings of the Special Committee of the Whole House Held in camera to consider the Qadiani Issue – Aug-Sept 1974


    Note – LAM testimony is on pages 1511 – 1855

    Hats off to late Manan Omar Sahib for his knowledge, his applied and theoretical scholarship which was on his finger tips for Arabic, Islam, Quran, Hadith, HMGA, HMGA books, Ahmadi history both in India and Europe, history of Islam and other religions. May Allah reward him the highest echelon in heaven, if nothing else, for his performance on the witness stand. Not for a second did he waver, there were no contradictions in his responses, he fully explained the most difficult and intricate issues despite the incessant barrage of accusations and interruptions by the bigoted ‘prosecutor.’ Manan Sahib made sure that Yahya Bakhtiar remains within the actual writings of HMGA, Quran and Hadith. He removed any imaginary disparities between Quran, Hadith and HMGA. These transcripts are a required reading for Lahoris to not only clarify their own beliefs but also affirm them. His testimony blows away not only the Mullahs but also the Qadiani beliefs, both of whom dissipate like a fog when sun rises. I wonder how in the world either of them will standup to Lahoris or point fingers at Lahoris in future. Manan sahib has cut off those fingers forever. He singly defended the Mujaddid without any apologies. In all this, the sole winner is HMGA.

    A most repugnant façade of democracy and justice is on display in the transcripts of August 27 and 28th. I was ethically nauseated by reading about 350 pages till 4:30am today. It was not a congressional hearing to find out the facts. It was a full trial by a well primed prosecutor and no defense attorney to even raise the objections to the obsequious frame up, leading questions, hypothetical scenarios, deceitful tactics, implied smirks, unwarranted interruptions, only looking for Yes and No answers and not at all interested in the explanations or elaborations , truth or facts.

    It was a sham setup that the proceedings did not require an upfront written or oral statement of LAM. They kept LAM in dark from the earlier 15 day proceedings against Qadianis. In pursuit of truth, they should had disclosed the questions ahead of time so that the world would had gotten a detailed treatise of beliefs of LAM and HMGA. No, they were only interested in the doubts and allegations. LAM was not even allowed an opening statement. It only begets the question, was National Assembly of Pakistan pursing truth or façade of procedure for a predetermined outcome. Of course, it was a scripted circus, but because of the testimony of Manan sahib, that circus was turned on itself. If it were a court, Yahya Bakhtiar should have been reprimanded for his deceitfulness that lay bare with each passing argument.

    Thank you Manan sahib. Without blinking or any apologetics, you made Islam shine. You made us proud of faith in a Mujaddid. You showed us what a Mujaddid means. Any future Mujaddid will be judged through the lens of your testimony.

  2. Jesus prophesied to his followers:

    “Be on your guard! You will be taken to courts and beaten with whips in their meeting places. And because of me, you will have to stand before rulers and kings to tell about your faith.” (Mark 13:9)

    Other translations of the same passage are:

    “Watch out for yourselves. People will hand you over to the councils. You will be beaten in the synagogues. You will stand before governors and kings because of me so that you can testify before them.”


    “You must be careful! There are people who will arrest you and take you to be judged for being my followers. They will beat you in their synagogues. You will be forced to stand before kings and governors. You will tell them about me.”

    This, then, is yet another likeness between the Israelite Messiah and the Messiah of Islam.

    At least Pontius Pilate had some decency and tried indirectly to save Jesus, but when he failed to persuade the Jewish leaders and their followers, this happened:

    “When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, ‘I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.’ And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:24-25)

    But the Pakistani Pilate, rather than washing his hands, claimed credit for the sentence passed against the Messiah of Islam.

    Also notice above the words: “And all the people answered and said…”. Sounds familiar?

    Read the statement by Abdul Hafeez Pirzada (Law Minister), presenting the final resolution, on pages 3072-3074:

    “… the nation could ill afford to divide itself on such a vital issue … we had to … look and search for a consensus so that the nation should not be divided on such a vital issue and the decision of the National Assembly should come unanimously and by consensus. It is my proud privilege … to state … that such consensus and unanimity has been arrived at.

    Ponder on: “His blood be on us and on our children”.

  3. This conversation has been repeated ad-finitum and the Lahore Ahmadis have always in my opinion failed to answer satisfactorily the questions that arose.

    Abdul Manan Omar for the first 40 + years of his life (according to Jahangiri sahib in another thread) spent the prime of his life living in Qadian with Mirza Mahmood Ahmad who at the time was propogating that belief that his father Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet and his deniers were Kaffir outside the pale of Islam.

    During this time no doubt Mannan sahib was present at the annual Jalsas where these beliefs were spread. (I even remember reading a story about him being in charge of/organising  these events)
    Was he deaf to the speeches at these occasions, or perhaps he didn’t find the claims of prophethood of MGA and ghair ahmadis being Kaffir objectionable?
    At the time if someone had asked him his opinion on these issues, with a high degree of confidence I would assert that he would have backed his spiritual leader.

    My understanding is that he only left the Quadiani jamat after a break down in relations with Mirza Mahmood Ahmad.

    Also what does it say about the Lahoris who were willing to take such a person as their chief spokeman?

  4. The only relevant question in this context is, did he or did he not faithfully, accurately and completely articulate the beliefs of LAM?

  5. The answers in the National Assembly were not the only presentation by the AAIIL of its standpoint to the Assembly. Before the hearings, the following four lengthy statements were published by the AAIIL, the first two by its Ameer Maulana Sadr-ud-Din:


    The first, as you see from the title, was the official pre-hearing submission to the Assembly. Why was no notice taken of these?

    Then I read in the newly-published proceedings near the end that Mirza Masud Baig asked permission to add something. When granted this with difficulty, he stated that you have been concentrating on the claims of Mirza sahib, but I would like to mention his services to Islam. As you will read, the anti-Ahmadiyya Maulvis immediately raised a point of order, that at this stage he is not allowed to say anything to “convince” (their own English word) the members, and he was stopped.

    No one is now alive who can explain the composition of the Lahore Ahmadi delegation, or the accuracy and quality of the answers given by them. All I can say is that if you appear in the witness box even in an impartial court, and your case is perfectly true and wholly sound, the opposite lawyer will grill you so much in the cross-examination that you will very likely be making slips and contradictions. And these hearings were in an extremely hostile atmosphere, perhaps like trying an innocent black man in a court run by the Ku Klux Klan.

    I also noticed that near the beginning of the questioning of the Lahore Ahmadis, Yahya Bakhtiar repeatedly asked (from different angles) the question: You say the split took place because M. Mahmud Ahmad established a tyrannical, un-Islamic khilafat, but you split from him before you saw his khilafat in action. How did you know his khilafat was going to be un-Islamic when it hadn’t been established yet?

    Clever question. But I would ask Yahya Bakhtiar this question: You were in the Muslim League before partition. Your League and Quaid-i Azam were telling Muslims that they would be crushed and oppressed by Hindus in a united India. How did you know this beforehand? Did you live under Hindu rule and experience oppression?

    When Jesus was on trial for claiming to be the son of God in front of the Jewish court, he was of course represented by himself. So we can safely assume that he gave correct answers about his claim. And according to Muslim belief his reply would be to deny making this claim. We all know the verdict!

  6. October 19th, 2012 at 6:15 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Dear Qadiani Jamaat friend,
    This thread is about testimony of marhoom Abdul Manan Omar sahib in Pakistan National Assembly in 1974. This thread is NOT about life and beliefs of Abdul Manan Omar sahib. But if you insist to know about him, I recommend you to read what he himself said about his life and beliefs, WHILE UNDER OATH, in National Assembly.
    Please read FROM PAGE 1834 TO 1840. There he has answered to questions regarding his beliefs while in Qadian and Rabwah, his reasons for working under leadership of Qadiani Khaliaf 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. Still if you have questions, I would request you to please post your questions in the following thread. You can go there by clicking the link. There you will be able to read marhoom Abdul Manan sahib interviews, in which he has answered question in much detail. Again, in interviews he has answered questions about his life in Qadian and Rabwah, his beliefs and much more.
    Interview with Maulana Abdul Mannan Omar

  7. October 19th, 2012 at 6:44 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    I have suggestions for 2 projects. If someone can do it, it will be very much appreciated.
    Project 1:
    Prepare summary of Abdul Manan Omar sahib testimony. List of points he made, such as beliefs of HMGA, & LAM; definitions and differences between ‘Nabi’ and ‘Ghair-Nabi’; different names of ‘Ghair-Nabi’; different definitions of ‘Nabi’; explanation of HMGA claims & statements etc. This summary can then be send to prominent journalists and TV political and religious talk shows anchor persons. Purpose will be to help start debate at national level about injustice done to HMGA & LAM.
    Project 2:
    Facts checking in testimony of Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad. Making a list of his beliefs and statements that are different than the one Qadiani Kahlifas ask their followers to adopt and follow. This will encourage Qadiani friends to question their Qadiani Khalifas. Purpose is to start revolt inside Qadiani Jamaat.

  8. October 19th, 2012 at 7:11 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    @ Dr. Zahid Aziz:
    “No one is now alive who can explain the composition of the Lahore Ahmadi delegation, or the accuracy and quality of the answers given by them.”
    I have information:
    LAM delegation included following people:
    1-      Maulana Sadr-ud-Din sahib(Head of LAM)
    2-      Abdul Manan Omar sahib (main witness of LAM)
    3-      Masood Baig sahib (General Secretary of LAM)
    4-      Mirza Latif sahib (librarian-to assist in finding references from HMGA books)
    5-      Mirza Salim sahib (librarian-to assist in finding references from HMGA books)
    Chaudhry Fatah-e-Muhammad Aziz sahib, was able to hear the entire testimony on audio hook-up in the office of secretary of National Assembly.
    Accuracy and quality of answers of LAM witness were certified by Maulana Sadr-ud-Din sahib.  If anyone disagrees then I would request that person to kindly point out question in reply of which LAM witness answered different from that of HMGA beliefs, claims, and statements.


  9. Rashid, what I meant was: There is no one is now alive who was knowledgeable of the situation at the time, and holding some responsible position in AAIIL in those days, who can authoritatively explain what happened.

  10. In the 1974 NA hearings, a prominent PPP member, minister and author of a book about Ahmadiyyat, on 5th September 1974, declared anti-Ahmadiyya Ulama as holding the rank of prophets!

    See this page, and read red-lined passage (Pages 2666-2667 of proceedings, p. 1487 of the pdf file).

    Malik Muhammad Jafar (see link about his life) was presenting a series of recommendations to the government about combatting Ahmadiyya influence. Here he is presenting his last recommendation, which was for the government to set up an organisation to propagate the finality of prophethood in order to make Ahmadis leave Ahmadiyyat. In the course of it he says:

    “How did it happen that in an Islamic society a man claimed prophethood, whose claim had so many contradictions, as well as in his other matters, and in everything, with so many things wrong, yet despite all this educated persons in Islamic society, scholars, members of Sayyid families, people such as Maulvi Nur-ud-Din and Maulvi Muhammad Ali, joined this Jamaat?

    About our ulama there is an order in the Quran to Muslims that they should have a group — and this is about the ulama — who show people the right path. Then there is a hadith about the ulama [Arabic]: The ulama of my Umma hold a status equal to the prophets of the Bani Israil. What a great status …”

    Where I have written “[Arabic]”, the transcript just contains the same bracketed word, without quoting the hadith.

    In the world of bizarre contradictions this must win the first prize: that ulama preaching the “absolute and unconditional” finality of prophethood with the Holy Prophet are described as holding a status equal to prophets!

    Another point arising from his statement is his recognition of the scholarship and eminence of Maulana Nur-ud-Din sahib and Maulana Muhamamd Ali sahib. This shows that the Assembly was not unaware of their renown.

    Apart from what the above implies on its own, there is a further twist I bring to your attention. Since the same hadith has been presented by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in support of his claim, during the second South Africa court case our opponents claimed in the court room that this hadith is not authentic and not found in any books of Hadith. So our team (I wasn’t in it), under Hafiz Sher Muhammad sahib, worked throughout the night to find references in books of Muslim scholars (e.g. Mujaddid Alif Sani) who have quoted and accepted this saying, even though it is not in any book of Hadith.

    If we then had access to these proceedings, obviously we would have put this forward. I can tell you that if in those days our advocates in Cape Town could have read these proceedings, our opponents would have been trounced by them. Zia-ul-Haq had released them to our opponents for their benefit.

  11. October 20th, 2012 at 2:04 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Zahid bhai, thank you for clarification.

  12. Major error of fact by Yahya Bakhtiar. His case collapses almost before it begins!

    At this link please see a couple of pages from the summing up of the case by Yahya Bakhtiar. I have red-lined in the margin the four quotations from Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad given by him. (pages 2689-2690 of proceedings, although page numbers are not visible, and these are pages 1498-99 of the pdf file.)

    According to the theory presented by YB, Hazrat Mirza sahib expressed these views “at this stage, from 1875-76 to 1888-89”. YB says further on page 2691 “at this stage he had not proclaimed that he was a promised Messiah or prophet”.

    The first quotation is from Hamamat-ul-Bushra, published 1894.

    The second quotation, as indicated by YB, is from Kitab-ul-Bariyya. That was published in 1898.

    The third quotation, as indicated by YB, is from Izala Auham. That was published in 1891.

    The fourth quotation is actually dated by YB at “20th of Shaban”.  I don’t know from where Yahya Bakhtiar got his elementary education but a date is not complete without a year (for example, it is incomplete to say that Z.A. Bhutto was hanged on 4th April). The year of that quotation is 1314 A.H. and the very opening words of the ishtihar are: “Yesterday 24 January 1897”.

    So the quotations he gives are all after the so-called first stage, and well after the time he claimed to be Promised Messiah in 1891. YB’s first stage ends in 1888-89, and two of his quotations “from the first stage” are from 1897 and 1898!

    Therefore Yahya Bakhtiar’s case, founded on dividing Hazrat Mirza Sahib’s beliefs into stages, collapses right at the outset. Al-hamdu li-llah.

    I think the reason why these proceedings were classified as secret and not to be released for decades by Z.A. Bhutto must be that he was aware of the ridicule that these would be subjected to, from a legal, constitutional, religious and even plain logical point of view, and would not stand up even to cursory scrutiny.

  13. October 20th, 2012 at 6:53 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Malik Muhammad Jafar

    Malik Muhammad Jafar trust website gives information about him. Here is some more:

    He had his schooling in Qadian. He knew Abdul Manan Omar sahib from his days in Qadian. During national assembly proceedings Abdul Manan Omar sahib was staying at home of LAM elder Mian Farooq Ahmad Shaikh in Rawalpindi. Very late at night around 2 AM, after first day of Abdul Manan Omar sahib testimony, Malik Muhammad Jafar came to meet him. He came without calling him. He gave following report:

    I am coming straight from [Z.A. Bhutto] cabinet meeting. It was also attended by Mufti Mahmud and other [members of religious parties in national assembly]. Bhutto said he has listened to your entire testimony [on audio link in Prime Minister House]. He was of the opinion to spare your Jamaat [LAM] and declare Qadianis as Kafir. At this Mufti Mahmud said: Qadianis are ‘Bayiman’ [Urdu word for dishonest in matters of religion]. They will declare themselves Lahori [LAM] and continue their activities, so it is better to declare both groups Kafir.  So it has been decided that you people too will be declared Kafir. And plan is to wind up your testimony tomorrow.

    Publication of NA proceedings gives credence to what Malik Jafar conveyed.

    1-Decision to declare LAM Kafir was decided before its witness testimony concluded.
    2-Testominy of LAM witness was wound up pretty quickly on day two.
    3-QK 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad made amendment in his Jamaat belief behind closed doors (just as his father QK 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad made amendment in his Jamaat belief in 1953 Munir Inquiry Commission). This level of ‘bayimani’ of Qadiani Khalifas was obvious to Mufti Mahmud Ahmad. This was the reason he opposed declaring only Qadianis as Kafir.

    (Above information about Malik Muhammad Jafar was personally told to me by Abdul Manan Omar sahib in year 2000.)

  14. Below is an excerpt from an article in Daily Times, Lahore (Monday, October 22, 2012). While the author comments about Ahmadis in general, he essentially is talking about Qadianis who insist on themselves as a separate community/sect. His last three sentences do give a hindsight 20/20 moment to make one pause. But, in big scheme of things, it is incumbent on one to speak for the truth, if and when it is needed. As identified before in the thread by Dr. Aziz, Jesus appeared before Pilate and Jafar Tayyar (son of Abu Talib) before Negus. The last episode of such appearance is of Ahmadi’s before the NA:
    COMMENT : The 1974 NA proceedings on the Ahmadi issue — Yasser Latif Hamdani
    While the deep state is recognised and rightly so for its nefarious role in keeping the general will of the people subservient to the vested interests of those who hold the strings, it must also be stated that some of our worst decisions have had nothing to do with the deep state. Consider the role of Pakistan People’s Party’s (PPP) in 1974 when it declared Ahmadis to be out of the fold of Islam, which has since created sectarian monsters in Pakistan of which there seems to be no solution any more. The in-camera proceedings of the National Assembly — especially the cross examination of the two Ahmadi delegations, one from the Qadiani Jamaat and the other from Lahori Jamaat — are now common knowledge thanks to a public interest writ petition no. 7283/2010 by one Bashir Ahmad Khan adjudicated by his Lordship, Ijaz Chaudhry, then of the Lahore High Court. This report is an eye-opener as to how far the ‘liberal’ PPP went in its efforts to declare an entire community out of the pale of Islam.
    The argument of both Ahmadi delegations was simple and straightforward: whatever the personal views of a sect within Islam, the state had to remain neutral and respect each sect’s interpretation. In other words, if a person professes to be a Muslim, the matter becomes one between him and God Almighty. The first Ahmadi delegation led by Mirza Nasir Ahmad forthrightly put forward that there were two definitions of Muslims: one, the political category whereby all sects should be considered within the ‘Millat-e-Islamia’ and the second, a religious category that is to be left to each Muslim sect and would not be the business of the state. Only this way can an endless conflict with regards to takfir after takfir could be avoided and political unity of the Muslim peoples be ensured.
    Instead of addressing these issues, Yahya Bakhtiar, the then attorney general, repetitively attacked Ahmadis on essentially two counts, i.e. Ahmadis’ views on other sects and on Ahmadis’ insistence on being counted as a separate sect or group of Muslims. By making the whole proceeding about Ahmadis’ religious beliefs and not the question of law, i.e. whether the state had any right to interfere in the individual’s religious beliefs, Mr Bakhtiar and the PPP conceded a point that hitherto the Pakistani state had refused to concede to the clergy, i.e. a majority can decide the beliefs of a minority constitutionally. This is hogwash and a throwback to the days of the execution of Sir Thomas More, who was executed in 1535 for his ‘Catholic’ beliefs in a Protestant England or earlier the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The problem with that is — other than the fact that we do not live in antiquity or even the Middle Ages — Pakistan’s National Assembly is constitutionally not the religious assembly of all the Islamic world. Islam does not recognise a clergy and finally, and most importantly, Pakistan is not self-avowedly a sectarian Sunni or Shia Muslim state, which Protestant England was, and the United Kingdom in theory still is. Indeed, even if we concede that Pakistan is an Islamic state, its constitution takes pains to establish Islamic provisions are to be interpreted and applied according to each sect.
    The second plank of Mr Bakhtiar’s argument was that Ahmadis had submitted themselves to a separate community and therefore it was alright to declare them out of the fold of Islam. He relied heavily on the fact that at the time of partition, the Ahmadi community gave a separate representation before the boundary commission, overlooking the fact that the Muslim League had given time from its own allotted time to the Ahmadi community to give its representation, which was a supplemental representation given to counteract the Sikh case for Nankana Sahib. The proceedings also contain absolute historical untruths by leaders like Mufti Mehmood, the father of Maulana Fazlur Rehman, against Ahmadis to the effect that Ahmadis somehow were opposed to the creation of Pakistan. On the contrary, Ahmadis, as a jamaat (party), had been instrumental in the Muslim League’s victory in the 1946 elections, and this was duly recognised by Quaid-e-Azam and the Muslim League. It is for this reason that Jinnah had chosen Zafrullah to plead the Muslim case before the Boundary Commission. Meanwhile, Mufti Mehmood had been until partition a leading worker for the Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind and the Congress, having opposed the creation of Pakistan throughout, as did most of the Islamic divines who in 1974 deposed against the Ahmadis.
    The 1974 proceedings expose the dual-faced bigotry of the mullahs and their ability to lie blatantly. The same mullahs, of course, later became the recipients of the funds that were released by Messrs Beg, Durrani and Younas Habib. In many ways, the proceedings are also a damning indictment of the PPP and its liberal protestations. Far from being liberal or secular, the PPP comes across as a prejudiced and biased majoritarian party. In retrospect, the decision by Ahmadis to even submit themselves to such examination and exercise in futility was a tactical mistake of immense proportions. Perhaps they assumed that reason might still prevail over ignorance and bigotry. They were wrong.

  15. He writes at the end: “In retrospect, the decision by Ahmadis to even submit themselves to such examination and exercise in futility was a tactical mistake of immense proportions. Perhaps they assumed that reason might still prevail over ignorance and bigotry. They were wrong.”

    I remember one or two members of our Jamaat saying (shortly after the event) that we should have refused to go before the NA on the basis that it had no jurisdiction in this matter, and by appearing before it we accepted its authority. But then our opponents would have claimed that our non-appearance was proof of our guilt, and that had we appeared we would have got justice. So it was “heads we win, tails you lose”. I am sure we were expecting some measure of justice.

  16. Here is another interesting exchange from the proceedings. I translate it below from Urdu, but note that where “Mr Chairman” says “Not allowed” and again “Not allowed, not allowed”, these words are given in English in the record.

    Link to pages 3002-3003 of proceedings (p. 1543 of pdf)

    Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan says (starting from last two lines of page 3002):

    There is no doubt that Mirza was a false prophet and this has been proved in this House. I believe we can make the decision to declare his followers as a minority. But in this connection I will say that those few, in fact 113 ulama, who issued a fatwa in 1970 declaring the People’s Party and its leaders to be kafir ….

    Mr Chairman: Not allowed.

    Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan: They are also liars.

    Mr Chairman: Certainly not. Not allowed, not allowed.

    Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan: I will say just one thing.

    Mr Chairman: For at least one day, just be cautious. This politics will continue in the future.

    Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan: Along with this I say that as there is unity among Muslims today, then at least in the matter of fatwas the Constitution should disallow any Muslim from declaring any sect as kafir.

    Mr. Chairman: If such speeches are made, then unity will not remain.

    Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan: As far as the present issue goes ….


    Mr Chairman: Thank you very much. That’s all.”

    It is clear what is happening here.  Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan, a member of the People’s Party, is saying that since Ahmadis are now to be declared as kafir (i.e. the rest of Muslims are therefore Muslims by the same principle), therefore the earlier fatwas of the ulama declaring the People’s Party and Z.A. Bhutto as kafir are false. As you see, instantly the Chairman of the House says: You are not allowed to say this! Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan then says that as there is unity among Muslims today (i.e., unity that Ahmadis are kafir and all the rest are Muslims), therefore the Constitution should also prohibit any Muslim to declare any Muslim sect as kafir!

    The Chairman responds that this way you will break the unity, and cuts him short.

    But, Blog readers, Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan’s argument (I don’t know if he was being serious or sarcastic) is that now, having excluded Ahmadis, we know who all the Muslims are. So all of them should be Muslims according to one another!

    No wonder, then,  that they prevented this point from being pursued, as this will break the “unity” between the socialist, secularist People’s Party and the conservative Islamic parties.

  17. October 23rd, 2012 at 3:15 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    @ Dr. Zahid Aziz,
    “I am sure we were expecting some measure of justice.”
    As far as Abdul Manan Omar sahib was concerned he was NOT expecting any measure of justice. This is he mentioned to me personally. According to Abdul Manan Omar sahib he said to LAM elders, “Bhutto is staging a drama. He will declare us Kafir” (In Urdu: Bhutto aik drama kar raha hay. Iss nay humain Kafir karar dena hey). This was part of his reason to oppose representation of LAM in National Assembly. In reply Maulana Sadr ud Din sahib said, “At least this will give us a chance to explain our message” (In Urdu: Kum aaz kum humain apna pegham samjanay ka moqa tu milay gha).
    I would say, both these elders of LAM were correct. Of course Bhutto staged drama of trial and as expected declared LAM Kafir (nauzubilah). After reading testimony of Abdul Manan Omar sahib, we got a chance of understanding beliefs, claims, terminology, statements, writings etc of HMGA in a dialogue form.

  18. October 23rd, 2012 at 4:23 am
    From Ashraf Ranjha:

  19. Ahmadis were already going to be declared Kafir…the meetings were a method to make everything official.

    Ahmadiyyat is a threat to Islam. Hence, you people are minorities in my country. Deal with it!

  20. More and more Muslims are running away from “your country” to Western countries where they become part of a minority. Please explain how they “deal with” being a minority in UK, USA, etc. They “deal with it” by declaring that they are loyal to the non-Muslim country in which they are living, i.e. by their own standards they become British agents, American agents, etc.

    I have come across people living in USA and UK who are Muslims according to the Pakistan Constitution, and they are trying to hide and conceal that they are Muslims because Muslims are often under suspicion by the authorities. One said to me, after the 7/7/2005 incident took place in London: When I travel by public transport, I try not to look like a Muslim. So that’s how you deal with being a minority!

    Talking about minorities, remember the pre-Bangladesh Pakistan which existed till 3 years before 1974? I do. Who was the minority in that Pakistan? Yes, the minority was the province which became the new Pakistan. You are that minority, the minority defeated humiliatingly by India.

    If we have no right to call ourselves Muslims, someone should question your right to call yourself Pakistani. Pakistan was what was created by Mr M.A. Jinnah. You are a minority who can be said to have usurped the name Pakistan.

    To release this record was a great mistake because now we and the world can scrutinise it, and the whole world and history will ridicule these proceedings!

  21. Jab me pehli bar pr ahmadayyat aur un ke hamare bare me parha tu ghara gia q k mere pass knowledge km tha phr 5 din tk muslsal un k bare me information hr website (qadiani Lahori sunni etc) se li.mta channel dekha qadianiQK5 wale tu shadeed gumrahi me hain aur highly brain washed hain.chanda system jo k zakat se ziada ehm samjhte hn aur jalsa salana jo hajj se ziada ehm ho gia he un ki asaliat samne la raha he aur bari tadad me log umhe chor rahe log shamil ho rahe hn wo ya to bari offers k waja se ya phir la ilmi aur asal malomat se dori aur aik bar kisi mustanad alam se rabta na krne k waja se ho rahe hn.dunia me is wakt sunni islam sb se taiz phail raha he. Baha’is(bahaullah ko nabi man’ne wale) bhi tadad me increase ho rahe hn aur afriqa me christian bhi taizi se phail rahe hn.tu kia tadad me izafa sucha hone ki alamat he. istarah sab sache hn. Agar mga ko ma man’na kufr he tu kia is wakt mecca madina islam khatm ho gia he aur sab kafir hn.Allah ne mecca kafirs ke hath de dia he(NAUZBILLAH) aur kai salon se kisi muslman ne hajj nahi kia keya? Allah k lie is gumrahi ko chor kr dobara Islam me juld a jain. ALHUMDULILAH me un k chakr me nahi aya aur bach gaya

  22. October 26th, 2012 at 3:33 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Commonalities between Hanuman (the Monkey god of Hindus) and Qadiani Khalifa
    Malik Muhammad Safi-Ullah (aka Rind Malik), is an active Qadiani based in Canada. He sends emails, but makes sure there are no other email addresses so ‘Reply All’ cannot be sent. So I am posting reply to one of his emails on this forum.

    In his email dated 10/25/2012 he writes in reply to question by Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar in 1974 NA proceedings, Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad replied: “Khalifa is made by Allah”.

    I wonder what QK 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad had replied if Attorney General had made comment, “by this corollary Hindus are true in their belief when they say their Monkey-god Hanuman is also made by Allah.”

    So, next time when Qadianis think of preaching to Hindus they should remember, Hindus deity Hanuman is also made by same Creator who makes Qadiani Khalifas.

  23. Monkeys cannot speak but humans can. Can Rind give us one example of that Divine wisdom/intelligence/insight/enlightenment/philosophy/knowledge/etc. that is only in purview of their heavenly ordained Qadiani Khalifas and the rest of the mortals do not possess, with the exception of exceptional trickery that is their forte.

    Qadianis while ignorantly ‘godifying’ a man, are factually ‘humanifying’ God. God by very definition cannot be that unintelligent to make such Khalifas and Khilafat that reeks of self-interest and conflict of interest.

    For example, the highest and most powerful office in the world is that of the President of United States. That office can only make a request for funds, but cannot allocate funds. That power to dispense funds rests only and only with the elected congress which is equivalent of Sadr-Anjuman of HMGA. For some ‘odd’ reasons, the Qadianis do not get this simple secular fact of conflict of interest, nor do their Khalifas let them get it. Welcome to the world of unaccountable Pirs and non-accounting Mureeds!

  24. During the 1974 proceedings…the Lahoris came and refused to answer any questions, much like the blog.  Here is the proof:

    Page 1634

    “..I asked him some questions about Mirza Sahib’s claim.  He was not answering and was avoiding; and so I left the subject with a view to come back  to the subject.  Again he was avoiding.  I left it.  I went to a third subject.  And now I am coming back to the same subject again.  But I have to give up the subject because the man insists on delivering speeches which he has prepared.”

    Mirza Nasir acted in the same way.  This is more than ample proof of Ahmadiyyat.  

  25. What you are calling “proof” is only the prosecutor’s own conclusion! If Lahoris refused to answer questions, why didn’t the Pak govt publish the proceedings in 1974 to prove it to the public?

    His conclusion could be as false as your allegation that this blog refuses to answer questions. Your allegation can be seen to be entirely false by anyone who cares to go through his blog.

    Do let us know which question we haven’t answered.

    Also let us know whether only one side can be questioned, and not the other (i.e. those who wanted Ahmadis declared as kafir)?

    Does the statement of the Quran about Allah, “He cannot be questioned as to what He does, and they will be questioned” (21:23), apply to you and your leaders, so that you cannot be questioned, but you can question us.

    A simple question is: Considering that in 1970 the majority party in the NA (the PPP) had been declared kafir by the Ulama, some of whom themselves became members of the Assembly, how can such an Assembly declare anyone else as kafir? Remember, I noted above that Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan, a PPP member, raised in those proceedings this point against the Ulama that they had declared PPP members as kafir. But he wasn’t allowed to pursue that point!

  26. Bhutto’s government knew that it was their false propaganda that they had triumphed in the NA and proved Ahmadis to be non-Muslim. That’s why they imposed a ban on publishing these proceedings. Other people, in particular later generations, actually believed the false propaganda, and therefore have unwisely allowed them to be published. Little did they know how ridiculous, flawed, baseless, and unprincipled the proceedings will look when people read them!

  27. Why would Peerzada later claim that Malik Jaafar was an Ahmadi?

  28. Even Lahoris admit that Qadianis are a danger.  Even Lahoris admit that Qadianiat is a fake religion.  

    Just admit it…the Lahoris never came to this assembly with an idea to tell the truth.  

    And we know you people dont answer any questions.

    And that little South Africa case of yours was a sham…did any Muslims even show up to the hearing??

  29. Your Muslim friends are also a danger, as the whole world knows. That’s why countries of the world take so many security measures against your Muslim friends.

    The girl shot in Pakistan by your friends (now being treated in hospital by “kafirs” in England) knows you are a danger. Remember that those who shot her are Muslims according to the 1974 constitutional amendment. Answer the question: Isn’t it true that Muslims shot her and now kafirs are successfully treating her?

    Your final question about the South Africa case is laughable and shows your ignorance. That’s why you are hiding behind anonymity, because you would be ridiculed for such ignorance. Try asking Professor Khurshid Ahmad. He wrote:

    ” from Pakistan a delegation was sent under the leadership of the late Maulana Zafar Ahmad Ansari to help the MJC. The famous advocate of South Africa, Ismail Mohammad, and attorney Ahmad Chohan, pursued the case most ably. Dr. Mahmud Ahmad Ghazi of the International Islamic University of Pakistan, as a witness and scholarly advisor, presented the Muslim view-point before the court for more than two weeks. Justice Muhammad Afzal Cheema, Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi, Dr. Habib-ul-Haq Nadawi, and the ulama of the Finality of Prophethood Movement gave every possible assistance. I myself had the occasion to participate in court twice in connection with this case.”  

  30. So tell me…who is a bigger threat, Qadianis or the general body of Muslims in Pakistan?  And…who do you hate more?

    Remember…Lahoris have been anti-Qadiani circa 1914. 

    And why do you call terrorists my friends?  Are you calling me a terrorist?  Do you consider all Muslims as terrorists?


  31. Ask the people in Pakistan the question: Who is the bigger threat to your lives and security everyday, killing and maiming you with bombs? Is it the Qadiani Jamaat, or persons belonging to the general body of Muslims?

    I called them “your friends” because all those who are committing such dastardly acts are Muslims under the 1974 Constitutional amendment, which you support. You say that that amendment correctly defines a Muslim.

    But from the doctrinal point of view, there is very little difference between the Qadiani Jamaat members and “the general body of Muslims in Pakistan” (including you).

    Both sides believe that a prophet was going to appear in the world after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw).

    Both sides believe that they are entitled to call any other Muslims, whomsoever they wish, as kafir.

    Both sides practise blind obedience to their religious leaders, so much so that they are prepared to believe anything and commit any act as commanded by their leaders.

  32. The biggest threat to Muslims is most probably the US presence in Afghanistan.  However, you refuse to condemn those people.  Moreover, when you were in South Africa you didn’t condemn the Brits and you still don’t.  You only condemn Muslims and promote a version of Islam that is friendly with the Europeans.  

    However, you seem to ridicule and condemn your own country men regularly.  And this is simply based on your hate for them.  You appear to be overly upset that your own country men have called your religion a sham and a threat to society.  

    Further, Lahoris had every opportunity to represent Islam in the West.  They had the Woking Mosque under their wing of management and influence for 50+ years, however, this mission had no long term effect.  

    In 1914, Muhammad Ali and Kamalaaluddin were right.  Ahmadiyyat needed to move away from Mirza sahib, his family and his writings.  These guys did exactly that…however, the family of Mirza sahib continued to peddle their product as a means of sustenance for their family.  This caused major problems for the LAM.  Because of the business aspirations of Mahmud Ahmad, Ahmadiyyat was forever exposed.  

    As a result of the above…your religion was also called Kafir in 1974.   

  33. Your first sentence betrays your sympathies for those Muslim extremists of Afghanistan and Pakistan who believe, among other things, that girls going to school is against Islam.

    We condemn Muslims when they bring Islam into disrepute. As to promoting a “version of Islam that is friendly with the Europeans”, it takes me back to my first comment above: Why then are your Muslim friends so eager and desperate to come and settle in Europe? Thousands of them every year are swearing the oath of allegiance to Britain when acquiring British citizenship!

    Why should we be upset at being called non-Muslim in a country whose Muslims present the biggest example of un-Islamic behaviour in every walk of life? It is you who should be ashamed that you had to get an irreligious socialist party, whose leader modelled himself on Chairman Mao, who had almost no allegiance to Islam, to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim! Remember, when he was on trial in 1978, he was accused in court of being “a Muslim in name only”.

    The Woking Muslim Mission saved thousands of Muslims all over the world from humiliation at the hands of Christian, European missionaries. Its literature went all over the world and Muslims in the remotest parts of the world have acknowledged that they were able to remain Muslims due to the literature they received from Woking. (More generally, I recommend you read the book “A Miracle at Woking” published in 2008 by a Muslim who has no connection with us.)

    As to the Split, why did Maulana Muhammad Ali continue to write extensively about Ahmadiyyat and the writings of Hazrat Mirza sahib throughout his life? Why did he engage in debates with Qadianis about Mirza sahib’s writings, when he could have said: We need to move away from his writings? Why did he tell the readers of his major English books in his prefaces that he was doing this literary work because of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?

    Why wasn’t our “religion” called kafir in 1953?  Why did the Munir court of enquiry humiliate and mock all your Ulama?

    (Sorry, I forgot that I can’t question you, but you can question me!)

    As to Ahmadiyyyat being “exposed”, what has been exposed here is your cowardliness. Of course you need to conceal yourself in the cloak of anonymity, because your ignorance and bigotry are being exposed here with every comment you submit! You can’t risk that people find out who is posting here (especially if are a well known anti-Ahmadiyya personality).

  34. Yes, i agree, you condemn Muslims at every opportunity.  That much is clear. You should think as to who has caused all of this conservatism in Islam.  The answer is the western powers that you admire so much.

    Do you think that the Christians in Pakistan or Arabia are genuine in their pledges to the govt?  Was Muhammad Ali and Kwaja Kamalluddin sahib genuine in their pledges of 1909 to Maulvi Noorudin sahib??  The question of genuine is absurd.  A poor man will pledge his loyalty to whomever is feeding him that day.  You may not ever understand this because you were upper class, as most Lahoris were in India.  

    Further, the internal problems of Muslims in Pakistan is none of your business since you are not a citizen of Pakistan, i.e. a Muslim.  Moreover, if I examined the internal problems of Ahmadiyyat, i.e. Lahorism vs Qadianism, I would recover similiar sentiments.  

    Yes..I agree, you people sold Islam on a global scale.  Muhammad Ali got his royalties and so did Kamaalludddin.  In the end, it was all about capitol gains.  There was nothing genuine in your approach.  The Qadian side of the house did the same…and both of us agree that it was a sham.  

    Muhammad Ali may have written about Mirza sahib throughout his life.  However, he disagreed with some of his concepts, i.e. the immaculate conception.  In my opinion, he watered down Ahmadiyyat in terms of Takfeer and prophethood in an attempt to give it more appeal.  Muhammad Ali may have mentioned Mirza sahib here and there…however, how many books of Mirza sahib were sold from the Woking?  

    Muhammad Ali continued to debate the Qadianis because he had no option.  They were selling the same product.  Pepsi and Coke are always entangled similarily.  

    In 1953, Justice Munir did you people a favor.  You people had sooo much influence in politics….

    And now you call me a coward.  However, there isnt 1 youtube video of you giving a speech or a talk on anything.

  35. It will now be obvious to blog readers that Muslim1 is writing blatant falsehood and misrepresentation. Wherever he says “Yes, I agree”, I have in fact said no such thing.

    The government of Pakistan certainly believes that Christians in Pakistan are loyal citizens. Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri believes it and holds Christmas celebrations for them (see this link). Since treason is a capital crime in Pakistan, “Muslim1” has effectively called for the execution for all Christians in Pakistan.

    He has also stated, clearly and categorically, that Muslims who have acquired citizenship in the West are not genuine in the oath of allegiance to the state which they took. This is a most serious and utterly false allegation against hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims.

    I would encourage Muslims to take legal action against “Muslim1” for defamation and spread of hatred against Muslims. If any Muslims wish to serve a writ against my blog to identify Muslim1 in order to take legal action against him, I will give my full co-operation and will authorise my website hosting company to release all information enabling Muslim1 to be identified.

    And read this nonsense: ” you are not a citizen of Pakistan, i.e. a Muslim.”

    Well, here is my first school report from Lahore. (Notice the teacher says: “He should write more English”. I take that advice.) So, you see, I am a Pakistan-born citizen. Are you? Then post an image of your Pakistan ID card here.

    Moreover, it is a blatant falsehood that a citizen of Pakistan can only be a Muslim.

    The “Pepsi and Coke”  analogy is most amusing because a court in Pakistan in 1993, ruling that Ahmadis cannot call themselves “Muslim”, said that “Muslim” is a trademark which Ahmadis would be violating. The judgment says:

    “For example, the Coca Cola Company will not permit anyone to sell, even a few ounces of his own product in his own bottles or other receptacles, marked Coca Cola, even though its price may be a few cents. Further, it is a criminal offense carrying sentences of imprisonment and also fine.”

    The judges likened Islam to a product like Coca Cola! What respect!
    He writes: “However, there isnt 1 youtube video of you giving a speech or a talk on anything.”

    Isn’t there? What would you say if there was? And doesn’t the rest of the Internet count except Youtube?

    Anyone with the least sense will laugh at his claim that I am appearing here with the same anonymity as he is! He has made a complete fool of himself, which is exactly why he is anonymous.

  36. You are beyond hilarious and hysterical.  

    Admit it, the Lahori delegation was disingenuous at the Assembly meeting.  They never answered questions nor did they ever want to.  As a member of your blog commented, the Lahoris had inside information.  

    You are truly a coward.  Are the native americans genuine after getting their country stolen?  Were they even genuine for any of those treaties or we they trying to survive?

    Grow up….you behavior is childish.  


  37. Muslims should ponder that their real enemies are the anti-Ahmadiyya represented by Muslim1. They have made daily life impossible for the Muslims of Pakistan by spreading intolerance and extremism, assassinating public figures who speak against them such as Salman Taseer, shooting teenage girls who stand up to them. They are making life impossible for decent, peaceful, law-abiding Muslims living in the West by alleging that they have taken false oaths to acquire citizenship. That is exactly the claim of the worst of the haters of Islam in the West, that Muslims are “the enemy within”. The opponents of Islam say that Islam allows Muslims to tell lies and deceive others. Muslim1 agrees with them.

    Any other anti-Ahmadiyya zealots reading this should realise that they are tarred with the same brush, unless they dissociate themselves from his views. Most likely they know who he is.

  38. November 5th, 2012 at 2:58 am
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    @Muslim 1,

    Since you are not a citizen of Israel, you cannot condemn Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. The internal problems of Palestinians in Israel are none of your business.

  39. The Munir Court of Inquiry in Pakistan in 1953/54 questioned a number of leading anti-Ahmadiyya Ulama on various issues, including the issue of Muslims living in a non-Muslim state. Here is one question and answer with one of them:

    Q.—In your opinion is a Musalman bound to obey orders of a kafir Government?
    A.—It is not possible that a Musalman should be faithful citizen of a non-Muslim Government.”

    Regarding Maulana Tufail Muhammad of the Jamaat-i Islami the report says:

    “This witness goes to the extent of asserting that even if a non-Muslim Government were to offer posts to Muslims in the public services of the country, it will be their duty to refuse such posts.”

    The report draws the following conclusion from the answers given by all the Ulama:     

    “The ideology advocated before us, if adopted by Indian Muslims, will completely disqualify them for public offices in the State, not only in India but in other countries also which are under a non-Muslim Government. Muslims will become perpetual suspects everywhere and will not be enrolled in the army because according to this ideology, in case of war between a Muslim country and a non-Muslim country, Muslim soldiers of the non-Muslim country must either side with the Muslim country or surrender their posts.”

    Our Muslim brethren living in the West, and indeed living as minorities in other countries such as India, should note that this is the status that the anti-Ahmadiyya zealots will get them reduced to. And how incredibly prescient are the words: “Muslims will become perpetual suspects everywhere”.

  40. Oh Mr. Zahid Aziz you have spun yet another series of arguments.  This is precisely why the Ulema has always said that to beat an Ahmadi in arguments is very hard…you people are experts in twisting and turning.  

    Further. if we ever got you people on the stand genuinely, we could prove that Mirza sahib claimed prophethood and you are a watered-down version of him.  

    Moreover, during the time of Mirza sahib in British India, Ahmadis were quick to tell on their fellow brothers in terms of allegiance to the oppressor.  In fact, your precious Mirza bragged about helping the oppressor suppress the independence movement of 1857.  

    In conclusion, you are always ready to point fingers at your own people, however, you will never blame the British for anything that they have done wrong.

  41. November 5th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    The present government in my home state of Kerala in South India, has 6 Muslim ministers, five of whom belong to the Indian Union Muslim League, the spiritual heir to Jinna’s AIML. One of IUML members, is minister at the Central Government. According to Tufail Muhammad’s stand, their decision to join the ministries is anti Islamic!

  42. “Further. if we ever got you people on the stand genuinely,…”.

    Who is this “we” that you are talking about? Does it include you?

    The leading anti-Ahmadiyya Ulama did have our Hafiz Sher Muhammad sahib on the stand in Cape Town for a number of weeks in September-October 1987 under cross examination by their advocate. So it’s happened before.

    I am prepared to be put on the stand by you. Do proceed with legal action. But remember that to take legal action you will have to do it under your name. You can’t take legal action as “Muslim1”, and you will have to appear in person in court. Remember also that both parties have to take the stand, so you (or the people called “we”) will also have to take the stand and be cross-examined.

    I am ready and waiting. I will answer the other allegations in your last comment from the witness stand. Since you intend to proceed with legal action, it is not proper to continue discussing here any issue which will be raised in court. Please do post here a list of names of the “we” who want to get me on the stand.

    (PS: To nail the lie of “Muslim1” (among his numerous lies) that “you will never blame the British for anything that they have done wrong”, I refer readers to the letter by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din published in the Review of Religions (Qadian), May 1913, read at the meeting of the All-India Muslim League, Lucknow, about the attitude towards the Muslim world in England. See this link.)

  43. The responses of Muslim1 are a testament to “Anger is flip side of helplessness.” He clearly is helpless to the extent that he himself admits “Ulema has always said that to beat an Ahmadi in arguments is very hard.” That’s when they resort to assault Ahmadi’s by burning their homes, bombing their mosques and killing them. Welcome to the “land of the pure” fanatics, the Fanatistan, that is even worse than a Bananaistan.

    He is a poster child of what “inherited” Islam means in which the only hope is belief in blind salvation just by professing dogmas. This is not far from Christian thought where salvation is only possible in next life. Quran is quite clear about such Muslims whose only merit is to be born into a Muslim household. Factually, Quran ridicules such faithful devoid of logical reasons for their being even a Muslim, a meritless belief:

    5:104. …They say, `Sufficient for us is that (tradition) whereon we have found our forefathers.’ What! (would they follow them blindly) even though their forefathers had no knowledge whatsoever and had no guidance?

    43:22.  Nay, but they say, “Behold, We found our forefathers agreed on what to believe – and, verily, it is in their footsteps that we find our guidance!”

    43:23. And thus it is: whenever We sent, before thy time, a warner to any community, those of its people who had lost themselves entirely in the pursuit of pleasures would always say, “Behold, we found our forefathers agreed on what to believe – and, verily, it is but in their footsteps that we follow!”

    Muslim1 is on the wrong forum. This forum looks forward to “Sun of Islam rising from the West” that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) prophesized.  A vision and future that includes blue eyed blond Muslims. Muslims, whose concerns would be more of peace in the world, eliminating global poverty and hunger, and even habiting Mars of tomorrow. By the way Mars is a planet and not the “Mars” like the beatings in the Madrassas.

    Such future oriented Muslims have nothing to do with Muslim1’s Islam that is sourced on any and everything but Quran. One wonders if his view is Islamic to begin with, which denies the finality of the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and in this day and age looks towards the sky for arrival of Prophet Issa (PBUH). Does Muslim1 even know that one needs a space suit for journey through space? I always wondered that they expect Jesus to arrive on the wings of Angels. Has anyone ever seen Angels to identify and recognize them when they arrive? The imagery of Angels that Islam of Muslim1 carries is from the ceilings of Vatican. How pathetic!

    It is the because of Islam of Muslim1 that people around the world mock and ridicule the most perfect human ever, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), by cartoons and curses. Khwaja Kamaluddin (may Allah bless his soul) wrote his letter to Muslim League with people like Muslim1 in mind (see Dr. Aziz’s post above). It is the likes of Muslim1 who are a source of Islamophobia in the world (see Issue 77). World would be a better place without Islam of Muslim1!

  44. At the start of his last comment Muslim1 writes:

    “This is precisely why the Ulema has always said that to beat an Ahmadi in arguments is very hard…you people are experts in twisting and turning.

    Further. if we ever got you people on the stand genuinely,..”

    So he believes that it is “very hard” to beat an Ahmadi in arguments, yet he wants to put us on the stand! It’s this kind of bizarre illogical reasoning that makes Muslim1 and his fellows hold the other beliefs against us that they do.

  45. November 6th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    “He [Muslim1] has also stated, clearly and categorically, that Muslims who have acquired citizenship in the West are not genuine in the oath of allegiance to the state which they took. This is a most serious and utterly false allegation against hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims.
    I would encourage Muslims to take legal action against “Muslim1″ for defamation and spread of hatred against Muslims. If any Muslims wish to serve a writ against my blog to identify Muslim1 in order to take legal action against him, I will give my full co-operation and will authorise my website hosting company to release all information enabling Muslim1 to be identified.”

    Muslim1, I am proud citizen of United States. I took oath of allegiance to defend this great country from internal and external threats. I pay taxes and I vote in elections. I already voted through mail in 2012 elections.

    As a patriotic citizen of United States, I ask you to RETRACT your ALLEGATION against Muslims in this country. Otherwise I reserve my right to INFORM FBI to get in touch with you and find  all those Muslims known to you and friends with you, about whom you know that THEY ARE NOT GENUINE IN THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE  TO UNITED STATES. I presume these Muslims must be your anti-Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement friends.

  46. November 6th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    “Why would Peerzada later claim that Malik Jaafar was an Ahmadi?”

    Malik Jafer Khan belonged to Qadiani family. He was by birth Qadiani. He turned against Qadiani Khalifa and by extension against HMGA, just as:

    1-      QK4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s right hand man Shaikh Ahmad Karim (owner of website . He was the person who pushed and shoved QK4 brother Mirza Rafi Ahmad, and threw him outside the room where QK4 was elected to office of Qadiani Khalifa. Remember: Mirza Rafi Ahmad was contender for the office. Compare QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad statement in Nation Assembly in 1974, where he tried to create an impression of very “loving”, “sincere”,  “fair”, “peaceful” atmosphere at the times of election of Qadiani Khalifa.

    2-      Chaudhry Akbar Ahmad, the Spokesman of Khatam-e-Nabuwat Academy-UK. Considered “scholar” by Mullah TV station TakbeerTV, UK. The same man was creator and webmaster of now defunct Qadiani discussion forum ‘’ from Canada.

    3-      Shahid Kamal Ahmad former Qadiani Khuddam member and now creator of website

    As I find time I will write a post about conversation between Malik Jafar Khan and Abdul Manan Omar sahib, regarding anti-HMGA book authored by Malik Jafar Khan.

  47. Mr. Zahid

    I never said that the Muslims in the UK are NOT loyal citizens. You….have came to that conclusion based on something that I wrote.

    However, I did write:

    “Do you think that the Christians in Pakistan or Arabia are genuine in their pledges to the govt? Was Muhammad Ali and Kwaja Kamalluddin sahib genuine in their pledges of 1909 to Maulvi Noorudin sahib?? The question of genuine is absurd. A poor man will pledge his loyalty to whomever is feeding him that day.”

    I had brought up the topic of the Maulvi Sadr-ud-din at the Assembly in 1974. This guy refused to answer any questions, instead, he brought a pre-planned speech. Further, your friends on this blog wrote that Lahoris had inside information from their political connections.

    For clarification, Ahmadis wont tell the truth. That’s why its hard to nail them down anywhere.

    If there are any other questions that are unclear feel free to post them and I will answer. I am not an Ahmadi, I am a Muslim. Moreover, Mirza sahib spent 60 books re-explaining his claim to prophethood. You people should be accustomed to readers getting the wrong impression.

  48. @ All Ahmadis

    What is this court case that you people are referring to or begging for??? I am not even in the UK….

    Further, all you people will do is lie and say that Mirza sahib never claimed prophethood. We will spend 2 years alone debating this with no end in sight.

    How can Muslims debate with Ahmadis with Ahmadis will lie throughout the interrogation process?? Its a double negative.

    For example, Lahoris agree with Muslims that the Mirza brothers called Muslims Kafirs from 1911 on…however, the Qadianis will never agree. They will put a spin on the entire matter.

    So..based on that…what is a debate gonna solve?

  49. MR. Jhangiri,

    Your webmaster should have corrected you….Qadianis did not change their position on Takfeer in 1974 as you stated…

    The Qadianis made this change in the mid-1930’s or so. They then, solidified this change in the 1954 Munir Inquiry..I’m sure Mr. Aziz will agree.

  50. Regarding the comments of Muslim1 addressed to me and to “all Ahmadis”, blog readers will immediately see that Muslim1 is now totally contradicting himself.

    Now he writes:
    “I never said that the Muslims in the UK are NOT loyal citizens.”

    Well, he has repeated the comment he made in response to my statement when I wrote:

    “Thousands of them [i.e. Muslims] every year are swearing the oath of allegiance to Britain when acquiring British citizenship!”

    He commented that their swearing the oath was not “genuine” and gave examples of oaths of loyalty which he considers as not being genuine.
    He asks now:
    “What is this court case that you people are referring to or begging for?”

    It is the one that he himself wanted when he wrote: “Further. if we ever got you people on the stand genuinely,”.

    He says:
    “How can Muslims debate with Ahmadis”.

    So why is he posting here?

    It is patently obvious that  Muslim1 is now running away on all the points he himself put forward!

  51. Mr. Zahid Aziz sahib,

    There is no contradiction in what I have written. However, there is much a contradiction in the founder of your religion. Lets not go there.

    1. I simply stated that after reading the Assembly report it was evident that the Lahori delegation never came with a clean heart and attempted to answer questions “genuinely”. Nor did the Qadiani delegation.

    2. With these facts now on the table, I am sure that it is forever impossible for Muslims to live in harmony in Pakistan with Ahmadis.

    3. I never said that Muslims werent loyal in the UK, you insinuated that from my rhetorical answer. You are very keen and quick to trap your Muslim opponents from the real issues, which you have totally avoided here, i.e. Why your Amir never answered 1 question and would start delivering a sermon when given a chance to speak.

    4. Further, I asked you if Khaja Sahib and Muhammad Ali sahib were genuine in their oaths to Noorudin sahib?

    5. I am posting here as a matter of fact to clear the air. You see, I am sure your friends have told you who I am and how busy I have been with other forums on the net, over the years I have become somewhat of a subject matter expert. Hence, it is my duty to educate the masses about what is Ahmadiyyat and its different branches.

    Any other queries?

  52. November 8th, 2012 at 3:33 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    It is obvious you cannot read Urdu. Your knowledge about HMGA is based on what you have heard from Qadianis, and Anti-HMGA/ anti-LAM people ; and what you have read in English by Qadianis, and anti-HMGA/ anti-LAM people.
    Listen “Rationalist” ask your parents to read Urdu text on pages 1699 and 1700 of NA proceedings. You will find it was anti-HMGA/ anti-LAM attorney general Yahya Bakhtiar who was conforming that Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad changed his definition of Takfeer while on witness stand and testifying in National Assembly in 1974.

  53. November 8th, 2012 at 5:01 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Maulana Sadruddin sahib’s statement in National Assembly.

    The booklet ‘National Assembly Pakistan kee Special Committee ka Roobaroo Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e-Islam Lahore ka Wazahati Bayan: by Maulana Sadr-ud-Din’ distributed among members of Pakistan National Assembly was ACTUALLY WRITTEN BY marhoom Abdul Manan Omar sahib.
    Abdul Manan Omar sahib was owner of newspaper ‘Jamhoor’ (English translation: Democrat), published from Lahore. Abdul Manan Omar sahib wrote this booklet in his office of newspaper and it was scribed in neat script by one of newspaper scribe. As Maulana Sadruddin sahib was head of LAM at the time, so booklet was published under his name.
    This information is provided to me by Abdul Manan Omar sahib’s son Professor Dr. Hibbatul Manan Omar (aka Dr. Khalid Omar). According to him, at time he was student in University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore and he was witness to the entire event.

  54. According to Muslim1, we can’t mention his obvious contradictions because our Founder is also alleged to have made contradictions. By that principle, when Muslims mention contradictions in the Bible to Christians, the Christians could simply reply: “Lets not go there because there are also contradictions in the Quran”!

    1.  “…after reading the Assembly report …”. So why did the government of Pakistan conceal this report from the public for almost 38 years? And then only released it due to court action. Why didn’t they publish it in 1974 to show the public what Lahoris were like?

    2.  “With these facts now on the table”. How did they get on the table? You got them out by asking the government of Pakistan?

    Muslims in Pakistan are not living in harmony among themselves. Various sects are attacking each other, killing one another even apart from the extremists. They are too busy in this to think about Ahmadis! 

    3 & 4.
    Number (4) was not a question you asked. You yourself admit in (3) that you were speaking rhetorically! There was no point in asking this as a question because you know that I would say yes, they were genuine in their oaths. As you now admit, this was a rhetorical statement by you.

    You were saying: Just as Maulana Muhammad Ali and Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din took the oath of loyalty to Maulana Nur-ud-Din just for show and out of hypocrisy and cowardliness, while actually they were opposed to his leadership (in your view), so Muslims living in the West take the oath of citizenship hypcritically, deceptively and falsely, while inwardly being opposed to those countries.

    Now you are running scared because of the fear of being sued by some Muslims for defamation!

    5. No one has told me who you are. Perhaps you can tell me. If you were a “subject matter expert” you would have the confidence to appear under your own name, and you wouldn’t be hiding your identity to save your face from humiliation. No one accepts that you have any credibility to “educate the masses”.

    You said earlier that I have no videos of speeches on YouTube. Do you have any of your educational lessons for the masses on YouTube?

  55. What I am saying is that instead of looking for contradictions in the writings and behaviors of your opponents, you should answer the questions that we pose genuinely and truthfully.  

    However, after reading the 1974 assembly script, I am convinced that Ahmadis will never do so.  And that is the crux of the problem and that is why the problem will never be solved.  

    On one hand you hade Maulana Sadr-udin sahib who apparently brought a speech written Abdul Mannan, however, he never appears to give credit to the author, then he even has the booklet published under his name as if he was the author.  On the other hand you had Mirza Nasir Ahmad sahib who either lied about the Ahmadiyya policy on Takfeer or simply really didnt know much about it.  These are the circumstances which the people of Pakistan will clearly see.  As the country called the leaders of Ahmadiyyat to the table to discuss the ins and outs of their new religion.  

     1.  I think the govt of Pakistan concealed the report in an attempt to protect Ahmadis, as it has tried to do genuinely since 1947.  If this has became public record circa 1974, more riots may have broken out.  Have you read the report???  It doesn’t look good for Ahmadis.  In Urdu, we say “thera saatea nas”, I’m sure the Urdu speakers understand what that means, well, that is what happened to both delegations as is obvious.  

    2.   When your friends the Europeans invaded the Americas, they described the natives in the same way.  When the Brits invaded South Africa, they described the natives in the same light.   

    2.a.  The point is, stop blaming Pakistan for extremism, you should blame the colonial powers for causing these sentiments.  You should blame them for causing fear and conservatism.  

    3 & 4.  Here you go assuming again.  The point that I was making was that no one can ever gauge the oath of another.  You are presenting the oath’s of 5+ million people who moved to a particular country for jobs, whatever their oaths are is inconclusive.  

    Similarily, Kafirs would convert to Islam during war in an attempt to salvage their life.  Muhammad (saw) approved of it, he said to honor it, however, if those same people apostacized, then, their punishment was the same as in the UK military.  

    We were discussing the genuineness of Maulvi Sadr-udin sahib at the national assembly.  You twisted it into a discussion on oaths.  You need to grow up.  Your leader had no intention on allowing others to probe his religion.  That is what you wont admit.  

    No one is going to sue.  Stop being so childish.  I don’t even live in the UK.    And this is coming from a guy who has never fought anyone in his life.  How can you discuss fear?  

    5.  You can have your opinion about me.  I don’t care.  I came here and to ask a genuine question…all you did was try to find contradictions in what I wrote.  

    5.a.  Your prophet had more contradictions that I could ever attempt to write about.  His god was calling him Esa (as) as early as 1880-2, however, he denied all of this in 1884.  However, 7 years later he claimed to be Esa (as).  


  56. @Rashid:
    “The booklet ‘National Assembly Pakistan kee Special Committee ka Roobaroo Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e-Islam Lahore ka Wazahati Bayan: by Maulana Sadr-ud-Din’ distributed among members of Pakistan National Assembly was ACTUALLY WRITTEN BY marhoom Abdul Manan Omar sahib”
    What do you mean by “ACTUALLY WRITTEN…”? Was he the only one behind all those thoughts, then wrote it, printed, and then handed over to central anjuman, and central anjuman just mailed that to national assembly? OR that was collective effort/thoughts of many peoples, and then Abdul Mannan sahib put those words on paper?

  57. November 11th, 2012 at 4:09 am
    From Mohammed Iqbal:


    What difference does it make? Whatever the case, it was the official statement of LAM.

  58. I will show here that Muslim1 is not posing questions “genuinely and truthfully”. He is so blindly prejudiced that he is behaving in a deranged, irrational manner.

    He says that because Ahmadis avoided answering questions at the Assembly, so the govt of Pakistan concealed the report to protect Ahmadis, otherwise more riots would have broken out against Ahmadis.

    This is ridiculous. Why should more riots break out when the Assembly had in fact fulfilled the demands of the rioters! Seeing the report the rioters would be celebrating, not rioting, saying that they were now vindicated because Ahmadis can’t answer questions! The govt would also be able to justify to everyone that it was right to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim!

    No, the reason for concelaing the report was that we would find flaws in it, and I found three serious examples (see my various comments above: one, two, three) even on a random reading.

    Muslim1 has now further defamed hundreds of thousands of Muslims living in the West by referring to their taking of oaths of citizenship as follows:

    “Similarly, Kafirs would convert to Islam during war in an attempt to salvage their life. Muhammad (saw) approved of it, he said to honor it, however, if those same people apostacized, then, their punishment was the same as in the UK military.”

    So according to Muslim1:

    1. All these innocent Muslims in the West are in fact like kafirs and munafiqin of early Islam.

    2. The Holy Prophet Muhammad, knowing that some unbeliever had accepted Islam only to save his life, and not accepted it genuinely, approved of such hypocritical acceptance, while he knew that it was a false and hypocritical profession.

    3. Then such acceptors were further threatened by the Holy Prophet that if they went back to their real beliefs they would be executed.

    Muslim1 has thus joined the haters of Islam by agreeing that Islam converted unbelievers by force, and they accepted Islam not because they believed in it, but just to save their lives, and the Holy Prophet Muhammad approved of and colluded in this.

    All decent Muslims will see from this that it is these anti-Ahmadiyya zealots who pose the most serious danger to Islam and Muslims today.

    He writes: ” I don’t even live in the UK.”

    No, you live in the western US, although when sending some recent comments you have tried to shield behind anonymous proxy servers on the Internet.

  59. November 11th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:


    “Similarly, Kafirs would convert to Islam during war in an attempt to salvage their life. Muhammad (saw) approved of it, he said to honor it, however, if those same people apostacized, then, their punishment was the same as in the UK military.”


  60. To Muslim1: You have sent a typical raving comment introducing several issues in order to divert the discussion from the grave allegation you made about the Holy Prophet Muhammad, namely, that he accepted such unbelievers into Islam about whom he knew that they only accepted it to save their lives. And he knew that once they were in Islam they couldn’t get out of it!

    Try reading 60:10 in the Holy Quran, which requires Muslims to test any unbelieving women who came fleeing from Makkah claiming to be doing it for the sake of Islam, to see if they really had some other motive.   

    The only point from your sick comment I will mention is your opening:

    “You have now been avoiding my question for almost over a week. Why was it that Maulvi Sadr-udin sahib came prepared with a speech that he didn’t even write and refused to answer questions?”

    There was no speech written by someone else that Maulana Sadr-ud-Din read out. And nowhere does the report of the proceedings say about Maulana Sadr-ud-Din that he refused to answer questions. You have completely misunderstood all this.

    You have said nothing about why you made such a serious allegation against the Holy Prophet. That is the point we will take up now, and the only comments published by you here will be those explaining why you made this allegation.

  61. November 12th, 2012 at 12:32 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Punishment of Apostasy in Islam.
    In testimony of LAM witness Abdul Manan Omar sahib in 1974 Pakistan National Assembly topic of ‘Punishment of Apostasy in Islam’ came under discussion. On page 1786 this topic is discussed. Mullah politicians in NA could not prove from Holy Quran or Hadith that punishment of apostasy in death in Islam. At the same time detail of how members of NA laughed at Mullah Politician Mufti Mahmud is not transcribed. Following is further detail of incident:
    Jennifer Musa (1917-2008)

    She was member of Pakistan National Assembly in 1974 on ticket of ANP (formally NAP) of Wali Khan from Baluchistan Province. Faith wise she was Christian.

    Abdul Hafiz Pirzada has mentioned her name in his interview with Najam Sethi tv program on Dunya tv aired on January 3, 2010.

    In 1974 during trial of Ahmadis in National Assembly, while Abdul Manan Omar sahib was testifying on behalf of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, member national assembly Maulana Mufti Mahmud blurted ‘Mirzai murtad hein, aur yeh wajab-ul-qatal hein’ (Ahmadis are guilty of apostasy, and they must be killed). Abdul Manan Omar sahib replied that in Islam there is no punishment for apostasy. This reply got attention of then speaker of National Assembly, Sahibzada Farooq Ali sahib and he asked Abdul Manan Omar sahib to expand on his reply. In the discussion that ensued, Abdul Manan Omar sahib asked Mufti Mahmud sahib to support his Fatwa with Holy Quran verse. Mufti Mahmud replied that there is no verse in Holy Quran that supports this, but Hadith supports this. Abdul Manan sahib asked Mufti sahib to quote that Hadith. Mufti sahib quoted a Hadith. Abdul Manan sahib asked Mufti sahib to please also translate it in Urdu. Mufti sahib translated it into Urdu, ‘Jis nay apna deen tubdeel kia, wooh wajab-ul-qatal hein’ (who so ever changes his religion, must be killed).
    At this reply Abdul Manan sahib turned to Ms. Jennifer Musa and addressed her, “Muhtarma, Mufti sahib is scholar of Islam. If you ever get impressed by his speeches on Islam and decide to convert to Islam, then I would advise you to say final good-bye to your family members, because with one hand Mufti sahib will bring you into the fold of Islam and with other hand he will chop your head off”. According to Abdul Manan Omar sahib the whole house laughed. Anyways, discussion continued and finally decision was made that there is no punishment for apostasy in Islam. On Abdul Manan Omar sahib request, Mr. Speaker placed the decision on record of National Assembly.

    Link to an article on Jennifer Musa:

  62. Four years ago on this blog we published an interview which Yahya Bakhtiar gave in 1994 to the editor of the Lahore magazine Athish Fishan, as reproduced in Paigham Sulh of May-June 1995. See this link. (Article begins at bottom of column 2 on the first page, marked there by red lines.)

    On page 3, 2nd column, Yahya Bakhtiar says:

    “… Begum Bhutto was sitting there. She said: Today you are declaring them as a minority, tomorrow you will declare Shiahs similarly, and then this will continue on and on. What is happening? Mr Bhutto said: My wife is unhappy. You should let them (the Mirza’is) go.”

    Now read this about the trial of Jesus by Pilate:

    “While he [Pilate] was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, ‘Have nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of him’.” (Matthew, 27:19)

    It is a well known incident that Pilate’s wife told him to let Jesus go because of something frightening she had seen in a dream. Well, Mrs Nusrat Bhutto also feared for the future and said the same to the Pakistani Pilate.

    (See also my related comment above.)

  63. I wonder how Muslim1 will explain his move from the Nevada area in USA to Australia within a very short time. Or does this explain the use of the term “we” by him?

    Muslim1 has given the following explanation of his remarks about the Holy Prophet. I quote that part from his latest submission:

    “I never wrote that Muhammad (saw) accepted oaths that were less than sincere. I was asserting and proving that Islam is and was such a compassionate religion that if someone said “la illah illulah Muhammad ur Rasoolulah”, he was saved. Whereas, the people that you admire (the British) weren’t as civil.

    Muhammad (saw) gave people the benefit of the doubt.

    Further, I was explaining what the rule of apostacy in Islam and clearing that misconception. Death was given to deserters in a military system of life.”

    What Muslim1 is saying is that the Holy Prophet accepted such persons as Muslims, who were trying to save their lives by reciting the kalima, but he knew that if later (when their lives were no longer in danger) they said, “no, we are not Muslims”, he would have them executed for apostasy. What kind of compassion and benefit of the doubt is that? It’s more like a trap.

    And according to him Islam is permanently a “military system of life”, permanently at war with non-Muslims, because he believes that even when there is no war, no one joining the enemy side, apostasy is still punishable by death.

    Anyhow, Muslim1 admits that the Holy Prophet Muhammad accepted people into Islam by the mere recitation of the Kalima, but Muslim1 himself excludes such people from Islam who not only recite the Kalima but practise all the basic teachings of Islam such as prayer, fasting etc.

  64. November 13th, 2012 at 5:55 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Enigma of “Muslim1” flight from Nevada to Australia
    Here is some background information to solve the enigma of “Muslim1” posting from Nevada and Australia.
    From 2002 to 2004 I use to write posts on forum. My target audiences were Qadianis. I was exposing immoral personal lives, immoral beliefs, immoral policies and immoral actions of Qadiani Khalifas 2, 3, and 4. Especially that of QK 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. By middle of 2004 owner of Ahmad Karim Shaikh was bought by Khatam-e-Nabuwat and other Mullah of Pakistani background. At that time focus of changed from educating Qadianis to attacking Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. One of the people who became active against HMGA and LAM and tried to defend Qadianis from getting knocked out by LAM poster, his name was A. Sadiq or M. Sadiq. He claimed to have Ph.D and called himself Doctor A. Sadiq or Doctor M. Sadiq. This man was based in Australia and perhaps was in teaching profession. He used his name as forum ID.  In few weeks he became “moderator” on the forum and picked his moderator ID “Muslim1”. His moderation was extremely IMMORAL. He used to write posts with his name ID, and delete/ edit my posts and even ban me with his moderator ID. He did not like his BLATANT LIES, MISQUOTES OF HMGA, and OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES OF HMGA, exposed.  I use to tell him that you’re behaving exactly like Z. A. Bhutto and other members of National Assembly in 1974. He use to act at the same time as Prosecutor, Jury, Judge, and Executioner, along with making sure that fair chance is not given to defendant to make his point and defend against accusations and allegations. Lately he is not much active on forum

    In place of M. Sadiq or A. Sadiq there is another poster on who has user ID “rationalist” and  also posts on this blog with names ‘Bashir’, ‘Islamic Knight’ etc. This guy like his predecessor moderator “Muslim1” has one user ID and different moderator ID.

    I am certain this person “rationalist” posts on LAM blog from USA with name “Muslim1” and shares his name with M. Sadiq or A. Sadiq in Australia.

  65. @Muslim1 – wisdom begets that once you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING! He has proven beyond doubt that he (along with “we” as his answers are multi-sourced across continents) out of ignorance and coattail following has first declared Ahmadis as non-Muslims in his mind, only then he is scrambling to shore up his arguments. For sure, he cannot find any help from Quran or even Hadith. The only source of his Islam is his self-contradicting imagination and the dogmas that either he invented himself or someone fed him, a poor choice for authority on Islam.

    Now the chips have started to fall in place from the patient and logical responses by Dr. Aziz. Muslim1 in his infinite wisdom has only proven in his arguments that Ahmadis are for sure Muslims. But, that leaves him and everyone else in a quandary. If Ahmadis are Muslims then what is he? Can both be Muslim at the same time? It would be quite shameful that Muslim1 is not a Muslim! No wonder he is using a pseudonym of none but a pseudo Muslim, a premise that he proved himself.

  66. To avoid wasting more time, for myself as well as for esteemed blog readers, I am not going to publish any further comment submitted by Muslim1 whether in that guise or some other one. His views have been fully aired here now, and his venom and malice fully exposed.

  67. I was listening to a lecture by Mr. Shahid Aziz entitled “More Qadiani Lies Exposed Again” on Virtual Mosque (link), and certain rebutting points by him caught my attention. Shahid Aziz sahib made some cut-through arguments which refer to certain facts that are embedded in the link to Paigham Sulah of May/June 1995 which was posted by Dr. Zahid Aziz above (link). Those points are:

    On page 4 – right column, Yahya Bakhtiar answers: … Mirza Bashir Ahmad, younger brother of Mirza Mahmood (QK2), wrote in a book that anyone who believes in Moses but denies (prophethood of) Jesus, further whosoever believes in Jesus but denies Prophet Muhammad PBUH, still anyone who believes in Prophet Muhammad PBUH but denies the Promised Messiah (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad), such a denier of the Promised Messiah is a disbeliever, assuredly a disbeliever…

    On page 4 – left column, the interviewer remarks that he has been told by Sir Zafarullah Khan (from Qadiani Jamaat) who in turn quotes Sahibazda  Farooq Ali Khan (Speaker of National Assembly) that if the proceedings (of the National Assembly) were to be published, half of Pakistan will (convert and) become Ahmadi (i.e. Qadiani).

    Shahid Aziz sahib in his talk simply states that firstly, QK2 was admonished very early on by Maulana Muhammad Ali that he cannot ride both boats simultaneously, one of his own beliefs and another of general body of Muslims. Naturally then QK2 recanted in front of Munir Commission, even though temporarily, the above dogma of non-believer of HMGA as non-Muslims.  So did QK3 in National Assembly.

    Secondly, if Qadianis are true in their claim, then why did not “half” of the National Assembly itself convert to Qadianiat while they listened to live arguments for days and were not burdened like the general public of today who will have to read hundreds of pages of transcripts even before they make up their minds?

    Thirdly, he referred to another case (Open letter to Malik Safiullah of Toronto, Canada – link) which was pointed out in one of the blog postings where the Qadianis make the tall claim that Judges very attentively listened as if they were “students” of the plaintiff Qadianis, while they shunned the Lahoris from speaking. But, why did the “students” give decision against the learned “teacher?”

    The “half” argument referred above refreshes some memories for me. Once I was in the audience of QK4. The impression that I got by mingling before with Qadiani Jamaat members was that “Hazoor” i.e. QK4 is a very learned man and his knowledge is quite broad. I did see QK4 walk tall in his dialogues with Jamaat members. He was asked all kind of questions and he seemed to answer everything that came his way.  He was questioned about Ayurvedic medicine and its effectiveness. His answer to the effect was that if that medicine was of any value, then look no farther than the poor health of the people in India. With a simple wit he satisfied the audience. In mass emotion I felt satisfied too, even though it was obviously somewhat a condescending answer. His line of logic makes parallel sense in the case of QK3 before National Assembly. If Qadiani arguments were so correct, then in the light of analysis of Shahid Aziz sahib, why did not “half” the National Assembly convert to Qadianiat on the spot? These two incidences provide food for thought and a case study of selective reasoning of Qadiani Khalifas.

  68. November 15th, 2012 at 5:12 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Qadiani Khalifa 4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s quote on Whole Pakistan becoming Qadiani
    Qadiani Khalifa 4 held belief and made claim that if 1974 Pakistan National Assembly proceedings are published WHOLE of Pakistan would become Ahmadi [i.e. Qadianis]. Now when proceedings are published, I worry how now Qadianis will treat us Lahori-Ahmadis. After all we are more danger to them, as we keep exposing their lies. What will happen to brother Shahid Aziz if he visits Pakistan. How he will retract from his lecture ‘More Qadiani Lies Exposed Again’?
    There is a Qadiani Organization Official Publication of the following title:
    A Review of the Pakistani Government’s “White Paper”: Qadiyaniyyat—A Grave Threat to Islam Replies to Some Allegations . A Deplorable Scheme of Falsification and Accusations against the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Jama‘at and its Background.  An English translation of the Friday sermon delivered by Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih IV (rta) on January 25, 1985 at the Fadl Mosque, London
    On pages 12-13 it is stated:

    “Once a member of the National Assembly was asked why they do not publish the proceedings and expose the falsehood of the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Jama‘at, as they claimed that the National Assembly had unanimously given its verdict that the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Jama‘at, due to the beliefs it holds, is outside the pale of Islam. The member laughingly responded that the questioner should be grateful that they did not publish the proceedings, because if it were published, half of the Pakistani population would become Ahmadi.

    I [Mirza Tahir Ahmad] understand that it was his modesty that made him utter this understatement. I believe that if the Ahmadiyyah viewpoint reached the people of Pakistan, then there would be no reason why the whole Pakistan did not become Ahmadi, except of course the unfortunate few who are forever doomed to reject guidance…

    … But, in good faith, I presume that if the majority of Pakistanis … get to know the Ahmadiyyah position, then such people will become Ahmadi by the Grace of God.”

  69. November 15th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    Ayurveda is a good alternate system of medicine. Of course, some of its premises, for instance, diseases are caused by three demons are not acceptable. But like any system which employs herbs for curing, it is less harmful than the modern Western medicine. Did KQ4 then think that the Germans were robust because they used his homoeopathic system? The truth is that it has lesser takers in its native Germany than in the sub continent.

  70. November 18th, 2012 at 6:25 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Mirza Nasir Ahmad did NOT want 1974 NA Proceedings published
    On pages 1506 and 1507 of 1974 National Assembly Proceedings (pdf page 779), there is dialogue between head of Qadiani Organization delegation QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad and Speaker of National Assembly (Chairman Farooq).

    Speaker made it clear to Qadiani delegation that NOTHING should be made public by them that includes ‘how proceedings continued’, ‘what was the purpose’,  ‘what was the object’, and ‘publication of proceedings’.
    In reply QK3 made comments: “Yes, NO publication should be made”; “we are very careful NOT to make it public, and InshAllah we will do the same in future”.
    In the end QK3 said: “I want to thank every one of you. You have been very gracious and have done great favors on us”; “may the peace and blessings be on you”.
    Given the above facts, how on earth Qadiani Khalifas 3 and 4 found audacities to challenge, in their speeches in presence of their Qadiani followers, Government of Pakistan to publish 1974 NA Proceedings. It is obvious QK3 and QK4 knew CHANGES IN QADIANI BELIEFS INSIDE THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY WILL COME INTO KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR QADIANI FOLLOWERS. This is the reason QK3 wanted to keep proceedings secret. And in public to their followers they were saying opposite. QK3 did NOT want to repeat what happened to his father QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. In 1953 Munir Commission Inquiry was open to public. And when QK2 changed his belief it was reported by Lahori-Ahmadi elders in ‘Civil and Military Gazette’ newspaper. It created embarrassment for QK2. And he had to make false excuses in front of his followers. Little QK3 and QK4 knew that one day the secret proceedings of 1974 NA will be published and made available on internet for ALL Qadianis, by Qadianis themselves, to read for themselves. QK3 stated in NA he was treated very well and outside the delegation had nothing but rancour.
    What more proofs our Qadiani friends need that their Qadiani Khalifas were guilty of uttering falsehood!

  71. November 19th, 2012 at 3:07 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Qadiani Khalifas have double standards.

    @Ikram and Mohammed Iqbal:
    “He [QK4-Mirza Tahir Ahmad] was questioned about Ayurvedic medicine and its effectiveness. His answer to the effect was that if that medicine was of any value, then look no farther than the poor health of the people in India.”
    “Did KQ4 then think that the Germans were robust because they used his homoeopathic system? The truth is that it has lesser takers in its native Germany than in the sub continent.”
    Qadiani Khalifas 2,3,4,5 are patented rights of ‘double standards’ and ‘double talk’. This is their modus operandi in matters of belief, treatment of other Muslims including Lahori-Ahmadis,   in their own Jamaat policies regarding Qadiani Khalifa Family members and follower Qadianis, and even in absolute secular issues.
    QK4 has no problem in criticizing Ayurvedic Medicine, but has great admiration for Homeopathic Medicine, and even practicing and selling his prescriptions. Fact of matter is that Homeopathic Medicines are nothing other than taking advantage of PLACEBO EFFECT [Definition: A harmless pill, medicine, or procedure prescribed more for the psychological benefit to the patient than for any physiological effect]. Many double blind placebo controlled studies have proved it repeatedly in Germany, the birth place of homeopathic medicine.
    Do you know why QK4 became “homeopathic doctor” after becoming Qadiani Khalifa?
    Here is reason: Maulana Noor ud Din was well known Hakeem (Physician in Eastern/Arabic Medicine). He also became Khalifa-tul-Masih. Qadiani Khalifas 2,3,4,5, were JEALOUS with Hazart Maulana Noor-ud-Din (rta). They used him only to “justify” their PSEUDO-KHILAFAT. Since QK4 could not become a famous Hakeem so he adopted a SHORTCUT to become “expert” on Knowledge of Body, along with being a PSEUDO-EXPERT on Knowledge of Religion. There is Hadith that says, ‘there are two fields of knowledge, one knowledge of religion and other knowledge of body’. Since Maulana Noor-ud-Din was expert in both fields, so QK4 also tried to become expert in these fields. First by getting elected in FRADULANT-ELECTION (while naming it Khalifa is made by Allah just as Hindu-monkey-god Hanuman is made by Allah), and second by reading few books on Homeopathic Medicine.

  72. November 19th, 2012 at 3:52 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    LAM Delegation Preparation for Representation in 1974 NA Special Committee.
    Late Abdul Manan Omar sahib personally told me that when responsibility of LAM representation was put on him, he prepared 100 POSSIBLE QUESTIONS that could be asked, based on historic objections on HMGA. Then he prepared answers to them. Those Questions and Answers, along with references from HMGA books, were written in neat handwriting by a scribe.

    Abdul Manan Omar sahib was so well prepared that when Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar started asking a question, Abdul Manan Omar sahib use to start replying it. Once Yahya Bakhtiar asked Abdul Manan Omar sahib, how come you start replying my question before I am finished with it? Abdul Manan Omar sahib asked in reply, are my answers not relevant to your questions? Y.B. replied, “No they are relevant”. Abdul Manan Omar sahib replied, “Even children in our Jamaat [LAM] know answers to these questions. They are old questions”.

    In my earlier post in this thread, in regard to ‘Punishment of Apostasy in Islam’, Dr. Khalid Omar (Son of Abdul Manan Omar sahib) reminded me another detail. I add it below:

    When Abdul Manan Omar sahib challenged Yahya Bakhtiar to produce single verse form Holy Quran that prescribes punishment for apostasy in Islam. Y.B turned to religious politician Mufti Mahmud in assembly to produce such verse. Mufti Mahmud replied, “It is NOT in Holy Quran”. Hearing such answer, Y.B. asked Mufti Mahmud, “Are you saying Holy Quran does NOT prescribe death penalty for apostasy”? (This detail is NOT transcribed in published proceedings).

  73. November 19th, 2012 at 6:04 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Abdul Manan Omar sahib’s scholarship of Islam and Arabic Language.
    Opponents of HMGA and LAM who question Abdul Manan Omar sahib testimony in 1974 National Assembly trial of HMGA, here is some information for them:
    1-Abdul Manan Omar sahib did his Masters in Arabic Language from Aligarh Muslim University, India.
    2-His research thesis was on Hadith in Master’s Degree.
    3-He was editor of ‘Urdu Encyclopedia of Islam’ for over 16 years, published under auspices of Punjab University, Lahore, Pakistan. He edited and translated over 500 articles. He wrote over 100 articles under his own name. Some of most difficult and scholarly articles were on subject of ‘Tafaseer of Holy Quran’, ‘Compilation of Hadith’, ‘Bahai Faith’ etc. Maulvi Shafi sahib was project director. One day in Punjab University Senate members raised questions and asked Maulvi Shafi sahib, “Why you have put Mirzai on editorial board?” Maulvi Shafi sahib replied, “If you can get me someone of his qualification, I will replace him today”. There was no “Muslim” in world to replace him. One day Vice Chancellor of Punjab University came to ‘Encyclopedia Office’. He had Abdul Manan Omar sahib published article on Bahai faith in his hand. He asked Maulvi Shafi sahib, “How much salary you pay to Abdul Manan Omar”? Maulvi Shafi sahib replied certain amount. Vice Chancellor ordered right there to double his salary. During height of anti-ahmadiyya protests in 1974, all of a sudden one day Allama Ehsan Ilahi Zaheer of Alhe-Hadith showed up at door of Abdul Manan Omar sahib house in Model Town, Lahore. He said, “I read your article on Bahai Faith. I came to say ‘Salam to Knowledge’”.
    4-Abdul Manan Omar sahib, along with his late wife, compiled and rendered into English Holy Quran Translation by his father Allama Noor ud Din.
    5-He became the first person in Islamic History to prepare comprehensive Dictionary of every word in Holy Quran in English language, based on prominent dictionaries in Arabic language. This dictionary is used as required text in University Courses in USA. Moreover, it is used by Black American Muslim Organization of late Imam Warith Deen Muhammad, in their educational programs.
    6-He became first person in Islamic History to arrange subject wise over 35,000 hadith compilation by Imam Ahmad Bin Hambal. He wrote 50 page PREFACE IN MAKKAN ARABIC. People who have read it have praised his command on Arabic language. First 8 volumes of ‘Musnad Ahmad Bin Hambal’ (total 11 volumes) including 3 with printer are published.
    7-He has written Urdu translation and Tafseer of Holy Quran. I have heard translation in audio CD (still not finalized recording). It is another living proof of his scholarship.
    8-He has written Arabic Tafseer of Holy Quran. People who have read it know its value.
    He has written around 80 books.
    Anti-Ahmadiyya people, such as former Qadiani  and current spokesman of Khatam-e-Nabuwat-Academy, UK and “scholar on Ahmadiyya” on Takbeer TV, UK  Mr. Akbar Chaudhry, who claim LAM was “destroyed” (Akbar Chaudhry used term ‘Satiya-Nas in YouTube Video) needs to prove his credentials to understand Arabic language and Islamic scholarship first. He lacks understanding of one basic fact. Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar could NOT read Arabic language, this was the reason whenever there was quote in Arabic language he asked one of the Mullah-Politician member in National Assembly to read it. How he could have “destroyed LAM”? Rabid Yahya Bakhtiar was only able to “win” and “convince” special committee of “judges” in National Assembly because it was a RIGGED COURT. He could not prove his powers to ‘win and convince’ rigged court in defense of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the person who claimed of “solving 90 years old Ahmadiyya Issue”.

  74. Mr. Rashid, 

    Can you explain how a man as intelligent as Abdul Mannan could believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet for 50+ years…then, suddenly have a change of heart??  

    How is that possible?  And what about Maulvi Ghulam Hassan Khan Niazi…did he suffer from the opposite disorder?  You are a doctor right??

  75. @4pac: Firstly, you make an absurd allegation without any substantive proof that “Abdul Mannan could believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet for 50+ years”.

    Secondly, if living in Qadian or Rabwah is proof enough that one subscribes to the beliefs of the majority, then should we say that despite professing Islam, the early Muslims while living as a minority in Makkah actually believed in the faith of the Abu-Jahl, the mega majority?

    Thirdly, it only begets a natural question that if you are a Qadiani, have you actually read HMGA’s repeated refutation of misconstruing of his statements, or you too have ‘heard’ it like most Qadianis that HMGA was a prophet?

    Fourth, since when has it become an issue of (mental) ‘disorder’ to change one’s belief?

    This is a classic case of Qadiani self-serving thinking where HMGA is ‘forced’ labeled as a prophet despite the facts to the contrary, and late Manan Sahib as a believer in that ‘prophet’. If this is not absurdity, then what is?

  76. No, I believe the absurdity lies in the arguments put forward by Rashid Jhangiri, Ikram & co.

    Abdul Mannan organised many major events for the Qadiani jamat, he wasn’t just any resident/on looker. He was deeply involved in the operation of the Qadiani jamat.

    I do not believe he held the views back then that is claimed now. 
    It’s a bit like the cardinals to the pope being atheist.
    But this selective amnesia of claims of prophethood afflict the entire Lahore jammat. He was probably the perfect person to represent them in that case.

    I remember reading some where that some followers asked if they could include Mirza Sahib in their namaz. The relpy from Noor-uddin was that the sharia had not changed so the namaz prayer could ot be altered. If he was not a prophet then how could his followers contemplate asking this question. 

  77. Regarding the last para from Umar, in this case his memory is unreliable (some might even call it selective amnesia, of course). The actual incident as recorded is as follows:

    “A man asked Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih [Maulana Nur-ud-Din] whether it was permissible to say the Darood for the Promised Messiah during the Namaz. He replied:

    You can consider the word aal as including the Imam. But you must not at all make a change in the words of the prayer; this is a strict instruction. Of course, before closing the prayer with salam, you may say any dua of your own, as much as you like and in any language you like. However, you must not, on any account, make a change in the fixed words of the Namaz.

    Nur-ud-Din, 9 August 1908.”

    (Badr, 17 September 1908, page 6)

    The man’s question does not show that he believed Hazrat Mirza sahib to be a prophet because the Darood is said for the Holy Prophet Muhammad and his aal. So naming anyone in the Darood does not mean that he is being regarded as a prophet. Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s reply was that the fixed words of prayer must not be changed, but the man could say any additional prayer whatsoever within namaz.

    If Umar’s reasoning is correct, that the man’s question shows he believed Hazrat Mirza sahib to be a prophet, then by the same reasoning Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s rejection shows that he didn’t believe Hazrat Mirza sahib to be a prophet!

  78. @Umar
    >>Abdul Mannan organised many major events for the Qadiani jamat, he wasn’t just any resident/on looker. He was deeply involved in the operation of the Qadiani jamat.

    So did early Muslims of Makkah during annual pilgrimage of Hajj when they did full scale business with the pagans. Late Abdul Mannan Omar sahib was an orphan from a very early age of 4. His brother-in-law was QK-2. He grew up in Qadiani environment, but he kept the belief of his father, Khalifa-ul-Masih Nooruddin sahib, through his mother, which was that HMGA was not a prophet. A parallel example to some extent is family of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). While he was a Muslim himself, his uncle Abi-Talib etc. remained non-Muslims. Sooner or later a time comes when for personal safety people of a certain faith are forced to migrate, and late Abdul Mannan sahib did the same.
    He never took bait of Qadiani Khalifas.
    He openly states that he worked under QK-2 in service of Islam, in the same manner as Companions of the Prophet worked under Umayyad khalifa Yazid (the unclean), with the sole purpose of keeping the unity of Muslim body. “I never followed any order of Mirza Mahmud which was against Islam” and he then gives the example of QK-2’s habit of social boycott of his opponents, which Mannan sahib states that he never followed.
    >>I do not believe he held the views back then that is claimed now. It’s a bit like the cardinals to the pope being atheist.
    We cannot argue an admitted speculation. On the contrary late Manan Omar sahib fully rebuts these kind of imaginations in his interview.
    English excerpt –

    >>But this selective amnesia of claims of prophethood afflict the entire Lahore jammat. He was probably the perfect person to represent them in that case.
    Amnesia is a technical term, but can be metaphorical as well, especially when used “selectively” but without any proofs. It is a self-soothing term for its user to smear others. Actually, Lahore Jamaat is exact opposite of amnesia. They do not utter imaginations, they refer to the facts. It was these facts and the truth that non-Lahoris (Sunnis of Pakistan and Qadianis as well) just cannot handle. How many Qadianis are believers of the alleged prophethood of HMGA from his own writings that they have read themselves? Whereas, Lahoris are non-believers of any claim of prophethood of HMGA, which is allegedly attributed to him merely for the fact that they have read HMGA, and not because their Amir told them so.
    >>I remember reading some where that some followers asked if they could include Mirza Sahib in their namaz. The relpy from Noor-uddin was that the sharia had not changed so the namaz prayer could ot be altered. If he was not a prophet then how could his followers contemplate asking this question. 
    This has been answered by Dr. Aziz above.

  79. November 24th, 2012 at 5:02 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Reply to questions of 4pac and Umar
    I am glad you’re using decent language for me on this blog, unlike words you use for me as moderator, on anti-HMGA and anti-LAM website ‘’.

    (@Ikram: 4pac is one of those disgruntled Qadianis who without exposing their identities and while living in Qadiani Jamaat, take out their anger against Qadiani Khalifa by ranting against Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib and hating LAM members for having guts to defend HMGA).

    4pac, Your IGNORANCE and BIAS does not mean that your claim that Abdul Manan Omar sahib held belief that “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet for 50+ years…then, suddenly have a change of heart”.

    For your information: I state on oath, keeping Allah SWT as my witness, in a less than a year period before his death Abdul Manan Omar sahib told me, in his house in Wilmington, Delaware: I was 4 year old at time of death of my father, my mother (Amma Ji) raised me and my siblings with set of beliefs, that I held while I was growing up in Qadian, while working under Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, after moving to Pakistan in Rabwah, after I left Rabwah, while in Lahore Jamaat, while testifying in National Assembly, after moving to United States and to this day, these are beliefs that we know as Lahore Jamaat’s beliefs.

    4pac, late Abdul Manan Omar sahib was not a type of person who would go around and state his beliefs to people around him, but if someone asked him, he would definitely reply. He was a very humble and not grandiose person. I asked him many times to write an autobiography but he never considered it.

    Regarding Maulana Ghulam Hassan Khan Niazi sahib, I can tell you that he was dead against any form of ‘Piri-Murdi’ (Master-Slave relationship). He was among the original members of ‘Sadar Anjuman’ founded by HMGA himself. Niazi sahib did NOT even do ba’it (pledge) of Maulana Noor-ud-Din sahib. He was among companions of HMGA who moved to Lahore in 1914. And to answer why he moved back to Qadian (long time later, about 3 years before his death): 1-He developed differences with other LAM elders on administrative issue. 2-His daughter was married to QK 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. 3-In his old age he moved to Qadian to be looked after by his daughter. NO WHERE HIS MOVE TO QADIAN MEANS HE STARTED HOLDING BELIEFS OF QK2 MIRZA MAHMUD AHMAD.

    Late Abdul Manan Omar sahib followed the Quranic injunction to support each other in matters of virtue, and propagation of Islam. As did companions of Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS. If companions of Holy Prophet can serve under Yazeed-e-Paleed (Yazeed-the-dirty-one), then why Abdul Manan Omar sahib would have refused to work under Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, FOR PROPAGATION OF HOLY QURAN???

    While in Qadian and in Rabwah Abdul Manan Omar sahib was (1) Incharge of Holy Quran translations and publications, (2) he was instrumental and mover behind scheme of publication of HMGA books under ‘Roohani Khizain’, (3) he was teacher of Hadith in Qadian and Rabwah schools and colleges of Qadiani Jamaat, (4) he was organizer of Salana-Jalsa (Annual Gathering) where people came as guests of HMGA.

    Please tell me what wrong Abdul Manan Omar sahib did by performing above duties???

    As far as financial rewards are concerned he LOST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF RUPEES by giving up his lucrative businesses and working under QK2. You can read details in his only interview originally published on and also copied on following link:

    Abdul Manan Omar sahib was most learned person in his age of maturity while in Qadian and in Rabwah. This was reason that QK2 made all kinds of false allegations on him. QK2 was worried Abdul Manan Omar sahib may not be picked as next head of Qadiani Jamaat instead of son of QK2 Mirza Nasir Ahmad. Abdul Manan Omar sahib was a VERY BRAVE person. His passive presence in Rabwah, despite all the clear signs of aggression against him, was scary for QK2. He lived in Rabwah for more than a year in that kind of hostile environment. He would have still stayed there, had not his wife forced him to leave that DIRTY CITY. This happened, one night Abdul Manan Omar sahib was not in Rabwah, and Qadiani-Khuddam jumped over the court yard wall of house when only wife and minor children were at home, and Qadiani-Khuddam entered the house performed obscene dance in court yard**.

    Abdul Manan Omar sahib’s scholarship of Arabic language and Islam was recognized by LAM. That is why despite his reluctance he was coerced to represent LAM in 1974 National Assembly Proceedings.

    (** The person who jumped over the court yard wall, and opened the house entrance door for other Qadiani-Khuddam to enter house, later moved to Germany. He visited Abdul Manan Omar sahib in his son’s Dr. Osama Omar home in Germany. The man showed his amputated legs, that he lost in an accident, and introduced himself as the person who jumped over the wall of his house. According to that person Allah punished him for what he did on that night).

  80. November 24th, 2012 at 5:06 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    1974 National Assembly Special Committee Proceedings in Dawn news
    In online Dawn newspaper (Saturday, November 24 2012) in article by Nadeem F. Paracha ‘Also Pakistan: The final cut’, cover of ‘Proceedings of the Special Committee of the whole house held in camera to consider the Qadiani Issue’ is published.

    I wish the famous Pakistani columnist Ardeshir Cowasjee gets chance to read report section related to Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. I am not sure how good is Cowasjee sahib Urdu reading skills. If he can read it would be nice. Few years ago I had email correspondence with him. It was totally new information for him to know that whenever LAM had to face our Muslim Opponent Mullah in an impartial court of law, LAM always won, including famous cases in South Africa. I sent him links to LAM-UK website hosting detail articles on South African Court case and reproducing of its decision in Pakistani Law Journal ‘Pakistan Supreme Court Cases, March 1986’ issue. I sought his help in getting the 1974 NA Proceedings published. I wanted him to write a column on the issue. He did not write one, but suggested me to contact then President Pervez Musharraf.

    If Cowasjee sahib could read conversation between Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar and LAM witness Abdul Manan Omar sahib, I am sure he will quickly come to realize that Yahya Bakhtiar was behaving as a rapid person. He was not letting Abdul Manan Omar sahib complete his answer. Y.B. was clearly very uncomfortable to realize that he could not grill Abdul Manan Omar sahib the way he did to Qadiani Jamaat Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad. Y.B. was clearly in distress to learn the truth that he himself was severely handicapped in matters of religion and was duped by false information fed to him by Mullah Politician members of National Assembly. He was quick to realize that he cannot build case against LAM and LAM interpretation of HMGA beliefs, claims and statements. And all his efforts were focused on ‘damage control’ by preventing LAM witness testimony come through. This he did by employing help of permanent and acting Committee Chairman and chairwoman, and by constantly interrupting Abdul Manan Omar under the pretext “of lecturing the house”.

  81. November 24th, 2012 at 5:08 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Qadiani Khalifas need to decide on date of “Ummati-Nabi”

    Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad taught his Qadiani followers that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib made claim of “Ummati-Nabi” in 1901 through his book ‘Aik Ghalti Ka Izala’ (Correction of an Error).
    During 1974 National Assembly hearing Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad gave a NEW DATE of alleged “Ummati-Nabi” claim by HMGA. According to QK3, HMGA made claim of “Ummati-Nabi” exactly 10 years earlier in 1891. Reference: Pakistan National Assembly proceedings print page 1106 (pdf page 577).

    Qadiani friends need to question their Qadiani Khalifas statements, or at the very least pay attention to Lahori-Ahmadis, when they say Qadiani Khalifas keep changing their beliefs, statements and logic depending on situation and audience. They have one set of beliefs for people in authority above them and another set of beliefs for naïve followers, whom they don’t mind getting persecuted and killed by Muslims. Qadiani Khalifas do not hesitate for a second to change their beliefs to save their skin in dangerous situation ONLY to them.

    No wander QK3 was so supportive of keeping In-Camera 1974 NA hearing secret. Qadiani friends, is this not enough wake-up call for you people?

  82. November 24th, 2012 at 5:33 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Qadiani Jamat Friend Appreciation of Abdul Manan Omar sahib Testimony.
    I am on a mass email list. The other day I received an email by Qadiani Jamaat friend. I do not who is this gentleman, but from his email it is apparent that he belongs to Qadiani Jamaat. He had a question and twice asked Qadiani Jamaat TV channel MTA program ‘Rah-e-Huda’. He did not get answer with reference from HMGA books. He repeated question in his email. His email address and email text:
    “hannan ahmad”
    i totally agree with mushtaq ahmed malik sahib’s statement about proceedings of national assembly. i have read the full given proceeding .mirza nasir ahmad sahib was quite confused in his statements and he was much confused regarding nabowat issue and kufr o islam ,,,,abdul mannan umar sahib was given very less time in this debate but he gave the best answers as i am not from lahore jamaat but can’t stop myself in this regard  from saying the truth..any how mirza mehmood sahib stated a term ummati nabi in hakeekat u nabowah but didnt give any refrence of hazoor a,s as he was giving the refrences of the terms used by hazoor a,s of nabowat ..hazrat maseeh e maud a,s proved that a nabi in shariyat e islam who brings wahi  e nabowat cannot be under any nabi of another wahi e nabowat of any nabi  from  the ayat of quran but i dont know why in an international programme like rah e huda it is answered that the wahi of mirza ghulam ahmad sahib is surely wahi of nabowat as i asked the question and they twice said this in that answer his wahi was of nabowat……can any one give refrence of this bold statement????
    End Quote.

  83. November 25th, 2012 at 6:05 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Cowasjee No More.
    I sat down to write an email to Ardeshir Cowasjee, informing him of publication of 1974 National Assembly Special Committee that declared Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement as Non-Muslim (Nauzubilah), and how travesty of justice was delivered.

    As habit while on internet I check Al Jazeera online website. Here is the news that I am saddened to read: Farewell, Pakistan’s Ardeshir Cowasjee.

    In one of his weekly column he wrote about Zoroastrian religion, and their famous Zoroastrian King Cyrus. I sent him an email informing him that Zoroastrian religion and Cyrus is mentioned in Holy Quran. He asked for relevant pages. I sent him links to relevant pages of Holy Quran English translation & Commentary by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib, and Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi sahib’s book Mohammad in World Scriptures.
    Cowasjee you always replied my email. Thank you. RIP.

  84. @ 4pac/Rashid – I hold in my hand the “Urdu Language Translation and Brief Meanings of The Quran”, “Dedicated to Husn-i-Bayan” by “Ghulam Hasan Niazi – Peshawari”. At this link you can view the images of the preface and the last page of the book.
    Husn-i-Bayan’ means the ‘Eloquence of Expression’. This was the title given to Khwaja Kamaluddin in one of the ilhams (revelations) of HMGA, which he lived up to by his spell binding speeches, mesmerizing essays, books and magazines, which are full of aha! moments for the audience. He delivered speeches in person across the globe –  England, France, Egypt, South Africa, Burma, Singapore, India and others.
    On the first page of the introduction, Ghulam Hasan sahib mentions his close association and company with Khwaja sahib. He acknowledges Khwaja sahib for his famous missionary work in England and his depth of teasing out the fine points of Quran. He recognizes the dedication of Khwaja sahib for propagation of Islam to the extent that he continued with his busy literary efforts to his death bed. It was Khwaja sahib who encouraged him to write an Urdu translation of Quran. So the author adds that he wrote the translation with brief explanations that carries within it the hue of Kamaluddin’s great ideas and philosophy.
    With the above in perspective, no wonder he dedicated his work to Khwaja sahib which shows on the title page in bold. Since the introduction mentions death of Khwaja sahib, it is obvious that the said work was completed after 1932.
    Ghulam Hasan sahib’s daughter, Sarwar Sultan was married in 1902 to Mirza Mian Bashir Ahmad, the younger brother of future QK-2 to be. Their nikah ceremony was performed by Khalifa-ul-Masih Nooruddin sahib (Al-Hakam, p. 10 – Sept 7, p. 14 Oct 1902 – pdf pages 548 and 653). Their son was M.M. Ahmad, the famous CSP officer (Wikipedia).
    He along with Maulana Muhammad Ali and Khwaja Kamaluddin, six in total were expelled from Qadian by Resolution 213 dated 22 June 1916 (see p. 127, A Mighty Striving).
    He later became the founding member of AAIIL (see p. 126, A Mighty Striving).
    Subsequently, on November 16 1928, his son Abdul Lateef Khan was married to daughter of Mirza Yaqub Beg. Their nikah ceremony was performed by Maulana Muhammad Ali at Ahmadiyya Buildings mosque in Lahore.
    Maulana Ghulam Hasan was the man who had refused to take the bai‘at at the hand of Maulana Nur-ud-Din after the Promised Messiah’s death because he believed that the Anjuman was the Promised Messiah’s successor and that it was an error to re-take the bai‘at at the hand of another individual…As to why, after adhering strictly to this standpoint for almost 32 years, he took the bai‘at at Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s hand, there is no need to go into the details of that. Anyhow, after he had taken this step Maulana Muhammad Ali, through Paigham Sulh, drew his attention to his previous beliefs and writings and asked him repeatedly on what basis he had taken the bai‘at, which he had been opposing for 32 years, and on what grounds he had joined the Jama‘at which he had labelled in his Quran commentary Husn-i Bayan as “a group of extremists” and “followers of falsehood”. However, in the answers that Maulana Ghulam Hasan published, he nowhere gave the arguments that had made him change his standpoint. In this connection Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote many articles in Paigham Sulh from March to June 1940, addressed to Maulana Ghulam Hasan, in which he compared the beliefs and the practical work of the two groups and clarified the issues of khilafat and of ‘unbelief and Islam’. (see p. 324, A Mighty Striving).
    (Paigham Sulh, p.2&7 – March 8, p.2&8 – March 12, p.5-7 – April 13, p.5-6 – May 12, 1940 – pdf download)
    Maulana Ghulam Hassan Khan Niazi enjoyed a position of respect in both the Jama‘ats. Since his beliefs regarding the status of the Promised Messiah and about the matter of the takfur of other Muslims were those which were held and advocated by the late Maulana Muhammad Ali and the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e-Islam, therefore, most naturally Maulana Ghulam Hassan Khan Niazi’s sons and their descendents were and still are the members of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Anjuman…Hazrat Maulana Ghulam Hassan Khan Niazi passed away on February 1, 1942 at Qadian and was buried in the Bahishti Maqbrah Graveyard (earlier he had taken bai’at with the Qadiani Jama‘at while still maintaining the beliefs of the Lahori Jama‘at). He was 94 years at the time of his death. (The Hope Bulletin, p. 13 – May 2009, pdf link)
    With the above brief tidbits of history out of the way, Maulvi Ghulam Hasan sahib’s move to Qadian in his 90’s to live with his daughter for his care, is used by Qadianis for point scoring, and as a proof of QK-2’s truthfulness. While, they totally shy away from the underlying facts and a reverse example of Maulvi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi sahib (the senior most Jamaat member after Hakim Nooruddin sahib).
    Contextual accounts of both these stalwarts are fully dealt with by Dr. Zahid Aziz in year 2003 on a different blog site, a must read
    Another source about Ghulam Hasan sahib is the book ‘A Mighty Striving’ in which you may search for his name or look up the index entry: “Ghulam Hasan Khan, Maulana”.

  85. @ Rashid – Cowasjee will be missed for his unique style and recall of history in context of the present. May his soul rest in peace, Amen. 

    Admirably, Rashid you have remained consistent in what you stated more than 8 years ago. I might even say that you were prophetic to a certain extent in your communication with late Cowasjee as early as 09/17/05.

    To refresh your memory, read this link of your post on a previous blog site –

  86. Maulana Ghulam Hasan Khan died in Qadian on 2nd February 1943 at the age of 94 years (having joined the Qadiani Jamaat three years earlier). On Friday 5th February 1943, at the Lahore Ahmadiyya centre at Ahmadiyya Buildings, Lahore, after giving the Friday khutba and prayers, Maulana Muhammad Ali led the janaza prayer for Maulana Ghulam Hasan Khan (in absence of body).

  87. November 27th, 2012 at 10:52 am
    From Arshad Hussain:

    This is my first comment. On the issue of 1914 split, our witnesses should have only referred to the following two books (in reply to ALL questions); the one written by Maulana Muhammad Ali and the other written by Khwaja Kamal-ud-din. They should not have given their own views at all. I may have overlooked but I did not see any reference to these two books.

  88. November 28th, 2012 at 3:42 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Objective and Position of LAM witnesses in 1974 NA Proceedings
    @Arshad Hussain:
    As far as LAM was concerned 1974 NA proceedings were TRIAL OF HMGA. It was NOT trial of LAM, Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib or Khawaja Kamal-ud-din sahib.
    Objective of LAM witnesses, particularly of marhom Abdul Manan Omar sahib was to testify on behalf of HMGA. And his position was simply that of a witness.
    On the other hand, Mullah and non-Mullah Politicians, with the help of Chairman and Chairwoman of NA Special committee, through their Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar (Y.B.) was to PROVE that Lahori-Ahmadis hold “SAME” beliefs like Qadianis regarding HMGA status and towards other Muslims, and the ONLY difference between the two groups of followers of HMGA was a POLITICAL ONE. They wanted to prove the QADIANI PROPAGANDA that in 1914 Maulana Muhammad Ali and other elders of LAM moved away from Qadian and split occurred because “Maulana Muhammad Ali wanted to become second Khalifa”. Yahya Bakhtiar repeatedly tried to achieve this objective. It was simply because it became clear to him and his supporters, based on beliefs and interpretation of LAM, it was IMPOSSIBLE to declare HMGA as claimant of Prophet-hood and heretic and by virtue of him LAM as non-Muslims.
    This is the reason, whenever Y.B. quoted Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad or his brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad writings, Abdul Manan Omar sahib first politely told him that he is not responsible for their writings and finally had to say to  Y.B. that “You’re quoting me writings of MY ENEMY”. (These words are published in NA Proceedings).
    Similarly, when Y.B. quoted Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib writing, in reply Abdul Manan Omar sahib said that he will look into it and send a written reply, after seeing the context. It is clear Abdul Manan Omar sahib did NOT prepare and intended to defend Maulana Muhammad Ali and Khawaja Kamal-ud-din sahibs. So it becomes obvious why he did not refer to books by LAM elders regarding 1914 split in movement.
    Following is piece of information, you might be interested in:
    Abdul Manan Omar shaib message to Mirza Nasir Ahmad.

    Abdul Manan Omar sahib was the main person among the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement delegation to 1974 Pakistan National Assembly. He testified for about 10 hours over two days in 1974 proceedings. Before him QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad testified on behalf of Qadiani Jamaat. He testified for 13 days.

    Few days before commencement of proceedings, Abdul Manan Omar sahib sent message to Mirza Nasir Ahmad. Abdul Manan Omar sahib personally narrated details to me. In his message he said, “This is in reality trial of Hazrat Masih Mauood (Promised Messiah), and yours and mine positions are of witnesses. If there is conflict between testimonies of witnesses, it can weaken the case for defense. In the beginning of my testimony, I will state that this is the trial of Hazrat Masih Mauood, and I will only defend him, so all questions should be related to him and references should only be from his books. And I will suggest you to do the same”. In reply message Mirza Nasir Ahmad said, “You can say that, but I cannot”.

    As Abdul Manan Omar sahib started to testify he made it clear that no references should be given from speeches and writings of QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, or his brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad’s.

    On hearing Abdul Manan Omar sahib’s disclaimer regarding Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad, attorney general turned to religious politicians (that included people like Mufti Mahmud Ahmad, Shah Ahmad Noorani, Professor Gafoor Ahmad etc), and asked them pointing to file in his hand: “All objections and references you people have provided are of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his brother”. In reply they said, “This is all we have, just work with it”.

    In two days altogether Abdul Manan Omar sahib did not testify even for 10 hours. Whereas Mirza Nasir Ahmad was grilled for 13 days. Over whelming majority of questions were based on statements and writings of his father Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his uncle Mirza Bashir Ahmad. I am sure if Mirza Nasir Ahmad had paid heed to Abdul Manan Omar sahib advice, he could have spared lot of agony, and it would have further weakened Mullah’s case against Promised Messiah.

  89. November 28th, 2012 at 10:55 am
    From Arshad Hussain:

    My purpose of writing comment is not to comment on the holiness of Mian Mannan Umar or other honorable members of the delegations; they are at a level too high for me to even utter their praise. No matter what they had done in the witness box, Ahmadis would have got the title of being “non – Muslim” by the parliamentary court. Had Mian Nasir done what Mannan Sahib had requested him, the outcome would have still been the same. I am actually fascinated with this proceedings; rich in intellect, politics, and religious information. I find its analogy only in the trial of Galileo by the Catholic court. However, it is an opportunity to analyze the material and look deep into the loophole in the philosophy and the way philosophy is described and strengthen the arguments for future generations. Ahmadis MUST NOT miss that opportunity. That is all.

  90. Rashid Jahangiri:
    This then brings up the question:
    Prior to the NA proceedings Abdul Mannan Omar sahib tries to work together with the Qadiani group.
    During the proceedings he claims that the Qadiani groups are his enemy.

    Do you not see something at all odd in the above?

    Secondly his suggestion was not at all feasible.
    The Qadiani jamat released extensive documents containing “proofs” prior to the proceedings that :
    a) A new prophet could come after the holy prophet (pbuh)? using verses from the quran to make their point. (Verse 4:69 comes to mind)
    b) MGA was such a prophet.

    The prosecutor would only have to ask the question, MGA refers to himself as a prophet in his books. What is meant by this?
    MGA himself used the term prophet to describe himself, for example when 2 of his followers were arguing over his status, one claiming that MGA was a real prophet, the other not willing to make this leap MGA interrupted them and told them “Nobody should raise their voice greater than a prophet”.
    When the prosecutor asked Mirza Nasir Ahmad, Tahir Ahmad and their ‘Historian’  Maulana Dost Muhammad Shahid, what could they have said to explain this statement?

    The Qadiani jamat would then have to almost repeat the writings of Mirza Mahmood Ahmad to explain their beliefs.

  91. Umar writes: “MGA himself used the term prophet to describe himself, for example when 2 of his followers were arguing over his status, …”

    He should give the reference to where this incident has been reported. We have already seen above (see this comment) how Umar’s memory distorts what he has read somewhere.

  92. The incident that Umar is quoting is from Mahmud Ahmad, its from Haqiqat un Nubuwwa (1915). I’m sure you know that.

    Mahmud Ahmad chose a dead person as his witness (maulvi abdul kareem). Maulvi Abdul Kareem died as a result of the many mubahilas that Mirza sahib was conducting.

    The more proper question would be, Did the Amrohi ever clear up this story?

    Moreover, there were many Ahmadis that were confused. They chose sides based on who their friends were…not doctrine. For example, Mahmud Ahmad showed that Amrohi had his son read some of Mahmud’s books in 1914 to him…Amrohi was happy with them. Maybe, and just maybe, Mahmud Ahmad reduced the pay of Amrohi as a murrabi, this may have caused Amrohi to leave Qadianiyat.

    And oh by the way…The Quran never tells us to pray 5 times. Would you wish to toss that portion of Islam out of the window like you have done with apostacy?

    Finally, did Abdul Mannan ever write down anywhere as to how he accepted Mirza sahib as a prophet for 40+ years hypocritically?

    @ Ikram and other Ahmadis

    I hope you people understand that you are now accusing Maulvi Ghulam Hassan Khan of hypocrisy. How many other Ahmadis do you wish to smear?

  93. I have had a glance through Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwa but could not find any mention of the incident mentioned by Umar which 4pac says is in that book (i.e., when 2 of his followers were arguing over his status, one claiming that MGA was a real prophet, the other not willing to make this leap MGA interrupted them and told them “Nobody should raise their voice greater than a prophet”.)

    I admit I may have missed it. So it would be helpful to have a page number from either the first printed edition or from the online edition in the Anwar-ul-Ulum series on the Qadiani Jamaat website.

    It is also strange that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad makes no mention of this incident in Ainah-i Sadaqat. He makes frequent mention of Sayyid M. Ahsan Amrohi in it (then alive), even trying to prove that Amrohi sahib used to hold the same views as himself. But he doesn’t refer Amrohi sahib to that incident. You can check by searching within the online translation, ‘The Truth about the Split’, which helpfully also has an index in it.

  94. November 29th, 2012 at 3:10 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    No Qadianis but supporters of Qadiani beliefs and claims
    Readers of this blog must have noticed that there is a NOTICEABLE ABSENCE of Qadianis in this very important thread that exclusively tries to discuss 1974 NA Proceedings. Not even Qadiani jamaat friends like posters Dr. Tahir Ijaz , and many other from past, are writing. There was minor presence of Qadiani friend Lutf only once that too not regarding testimony of QK 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad. Reason is obvious, they know, the more they write the more they will embarrass their QK3 and their jamaat delegation.
    On the other hand former Qadianis, who have become anti-HMGA like ‘4pac’ and “Umar” (other name of ‘Rationalist’, ‘Muslim1—Nevada version’), are quite active. These two are also not discussing LAM delegation testimony, but are acting as detractors. Wonder why? Answer is simple: They want to uphold Qadiani beliefs and claims in relation to LAM. Their main objective is NOT to help Qadianis “win” but they want to “destroy” HMGA. And they know they cannot achieve their objective as long as LAM is alive and kicking. And in their opinion, because of left over hangover from Qadiani intoxication, they somehow are under delusion that Qadiani arguments can “destroy” LAM.
    Abdul Manan Omar sahib advice to QK3 was quite valuable. Had he paid heed, it would have saved him lots of non-sense question of Yahya Bakhtiar. But if QK3 had decided not to defend QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad, it would have practically meant they have ADOPTED LAM BELIEFS AND IN REALITY THEY ARE LAM. Just the way QK2 did in 1953 Munir Inquiry Commission.
    During testimony Abdul Manan Omar sahib had stated that QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was his enemy. He said this to stop Yahya Bahktiar from making him (Abdul Manan Omar sahib) defend QK3. Abdul Manan Omar sahib was under NO obligation to defend the STUPID writings of QK3.
    I don’t understand why you find something odd in Abdul Manan Omar sahibs approach!
    If QK3 had adopted the interpretation of HMGA writings and claims, he would have not given Yahya Bakhtiar chance to grill him for 13 days. And maybe, again, maybe it would have prevented such a harsh decision regarding both groups of followers of HMGA.
    Only if you can read Urdu, you would have read, Yahya Bakhtiar repeatedly quoted from HMGA books to establish that he made claim of prophethood, the way Qadianis interpret, but Yahya Bakhtiar could NOT establish that with Abdul Manan Omar sahib. Simply because HMGA did NOT mean the prophethood that is interpreted by Qadianis.
    @Arshad Hussain sahib,
    I agree with you, the outcome would have not been much different than what it was, even if QK3 had followed Abdul Manan Omar sahib advice. It was a political decision from the get-go. Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan Peoples Party did not like his strong Qadiani supporters in 1970 elections starting a love-affair with his political enemy Air Marshal Asghar Khan of ‘Tahrik-i-Istaqlal’. ZAB knocked out Qadianis and LAM became innocent victim. LAM fault was it was ‘guilty by association’. LAM is follower of HMGA.

  95. @4pac

    >>Maybe, and just maybe, Mahmud Ahmad reduced the pay of Amrohi as a murrabi, this may have caused Amrohi to leave Qadianiyat.
    Once again, unsubstantiated assumptions, hypothesis and guesswork by 4pac, in an effort to spread rumors.
    >>And oh by the way…The Quran never tells us to pray 5 times. Would you wish to toss that portion of Islam out of the window like you have done with apostacy?
    Above is another arrogant rant without knowledge. 4pac suffers not only from scotomas (blind spots) but astigmatism (distortion) of intellect and literacy as well. He obviously reads his mind into the Quran, not as to what is written in the Quran. One wonders if he is on the payroll of Robert Spencer of who similarly presents half-truths and out of context allegations against Quran, e.g. the apostasy (see Issue 72). At least Quran rebuts him for his allegations against prayers.

    24:58. …Before the morning prayer,…
    11:114. And keep up prayer at the two ends of the day and in the first hours of the night…

    [Footnote] The times of prayer are clearly indicated here. Of the two ends of the day, the first is the fajr, or the prayer before sunrise, and the second includes the zuhr, or the early afternoon, and the asr, or the later afternoon, prayers. In the first hours of the night we have the maghrib, or the after sunset prayer, and the isha, or the prayer before going to bed. The two afternoon prayers and the two after sunset prayers, which are spoken of together, may under exceptional circumstances be said together in each case.

    20:130. So bear patiently what they say, and celebrate the praise of your Lord before the rising of the sun and before its setting, and glorify (Him) during the hours of the night and parts of the day, that you may be well pleased.

    [Footnote] The Holy Prophet, while told to bear persecutions patiently for a time, is also told to seek comfort in prayer. And he did find comfort in prayer under the severest persecutions. “The coolness of my eyes is in prayer,” he is reported to have said (Mishkat, 25). This verse speaks of the five obligatory prayers and the two optional ones. Before the rising of the sun is the dawn prayer (fajr), before its setting the asr  prayer. Three prayers, the maghrib, the isha and the tahajjud (the last named being optional), occur during the hours of the night, while during parts of the day are the zuhr and the duha, the latter again being optional, being a short prayer in the early forenoon.

    17:78. Keep up prayer from the declining of the sun till the darkness of the night, and the recital of the Quran at dawn. Surely the recital of the Quran at dawn is witnessed.

    [Footnote] …From the declining of the sun to sunset are zuhr and asr, or the early and late afternoon prayers, while from sunset till darkness are maghrib and isha, or the sunset prayer and the prayer at nightfall. The fifth is the morning prayer, which is called here Quran al-fajr, or the recital of the Quran at dawn. Thus this verse, which is one of the very early revelations, mentions all the five prayers.

    17:79. And during a part of the night, keep awake by it,…

    [Footnote] This refers to the tahajjud prayer, whose name is derived from the words “keep awake” (fa-tahajjad). The time for this prayer is the latter portion of the night in the early hours. It is not an obligatory prayer but, as stated here, it is the means of raising a man to a position of great glory. The time at which it is said is most suited for the concentration of mind and for communion with God.

    24:58. …and after the prayer of night…
    17:79. And during a part of the night, keep awake by it,…

    [Footnote] This refers to the tahajjud prayer, whose name is derived from the words “keep awake” (fa-tahajjad). The time for this prayer is the latter portion of the night in the early hours. It is not an obligatory prayer but, as stated here, it is the means of raising a man to a position of great glory. The time at which it is said is most suited for the concentration of mind and for communion with God.

    73:6. The rising (to pray) by night is surely the firmest way to tread and most effective in speech.

    Interestingly, under certain condition Islam allows to merge Zuhr with Asr and Maghrib with Isha prayers, which then makes it 3 daily prayers that we find in Bible as well:

    Daniel 6:10 (NIV). Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before.
    Psalms 55:16-17(NIV). As for me, I call to God, and the Lord saves me. Evening, morning and noon I cry out in distress, and he hears my voice.

    Irrespective of number of prayers, Quran admonishes against mere show of prayers:

    8:35. And their prayer at the House is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands.
    107:4-7. So woe to the praying ones, who are unmindful of their prayer, who do (good) to be seen, and refrain from acts of kindness!

    >>Finally, did Abdul Mannan ever write down anywhere as to how he accepted Mirza sahib as a prophet for 40+ years hypocritically?
    4pac is again on the roll for another fabricated allegation, smear and an effort to create doubts.
    >>@ Ikram and other Ahmadis, I hope you people understand that you are now accusing Maulvi Ghulam Hassan Khan of hypocrisy. How many other Ahmadis do you wish to smear?
    Again, it is none but 4pac, who is trying to seed an accusation against Maulvi Ghulam Hassan Khan sahib of alleged hypocrisy. The responses in above posts only discussed the facts that stand in the record. This Jamaat said ‘burial prayers in absence’ for him, led by none other than the Amir himself, Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib.
    4pac seems intoxicated with a shorter version of 6-pack, i.e. 4-pack, as his pen has exposed his mind and his heart which exude of hypocrisy, doubts, accusations, rancor and rumor mongering that closely parallel attributes of Satan/Satanic nature as mentioned in Quran. These statements of satanic attributes can be individually quoted from Quran, but let him read his own mind into Quran rather than what Quran states on issues that concern him.
    The vaccine in Quran against such satanic whispering is as follows that can be included in 5 times daily prayers:

    113:1-5. Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the dawn, from the evil of what He has created, and from the evil of intense darkness, when it comes, and from the evil of those who cast (evil suggestions) in firm resolutions, and from the evil of the envier when he envies.
    114:1-5. Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind, the King of mankind, the God of mankind, from the evil of the whisperings of the sneaking (devil), who whispers into the hearts of people, (and is) from among the jinn and mankind.

    Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz

  96. I am not a reference finder. Next time have your assistants do this work. I sure that since Anwarul Uloom was created, the references that we had quoted in the past are now inaccurate. As you know, your Qadianis friends have purposely done this to throw off the scent.

    “At last that event did take place. In the year 1900, Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim, the preacher of the Friday sermon, gave a sermon in which he, used the words Nabi (Prophet) and Rasul (Messenger) for the Mirza. This caused great irritation to Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohawi. When Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim came to know of this, he gave another Friday sermon in which be addressed the Mirza, requesting him to contradict his belief, if he was wrong in considering him to be a prophet and Messenger of God. After the Friday prayers were over, Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim caught hold of the skirt of the Mirza’s apparel and requested him to correct him in his beliefs if they were erroneous. The Mirza turned around and said that he, too, held the same belief. Meanwhile, Maulavi Muhammad Ahsan had been greatly agitated by the sermon and in anger was pacing the floor of the mosque. On Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim’s return, he began to quarrel with him. When their voices rose very high, the Mirza came out of his house and recited the Qur’anic verse: “O ye who believe! Don’t raise your Voice above the voice of the Prophet.”

    (This event is based on the report of a speech of Sayyid Sarwar Shah Qadiani at an annual conference held in Qadian, and published in al- Fadhl, Vol. X, No. 51, dated january.4,1923)

    (See also Haqiqat al- Nubuwat, p 124.[published in 1915])


    Seerat Ul mehdi part 3—by Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad
    pdf Page 183 of 316

    “Sheikh Abdul Haq sb s/o Sheikh Abdulla sb resident of wadala bangar, Tehsil Gurdast Pur, narrated to me in writing this incident that once an Iranian elder came to qadian and stayed for many months, I came again to qadian 3-4 months after his arrival. I saw him in Mubarak Musjid, It was probably Friday. After Friday prayers that Iranian elder requested mgaq to accept his bai’t. Huzoor said some other time or still wait some more time, upon this that Iranian elder started talking in loud voice which meant either accpet my bai’t or allow me to leave your place. He kept repeating these words in loud voice. At that time, moulvi Muhammaed Ahsan (late) stood up and read this ayat of Surat Hajrat:O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and said that it was not befitting a faithful to raise his voice louder than nabi, this is disrespect you should not do this, but that Irani elder did not change his tone. Finally some men calmed him and took him outside the mosque, I don’t know if he stayed here or went and his bait was accepted or not. “

  97. The incident I am refering to is:
    There is a sermon delivered by Maulvi Abdul Karim sahib, recorded in In Al Hakam Nov 24, 1902. On page 7 commenting on verse 9:127, “surely a Messenger has come unto you from among yourselves’, he stated:
     ”in 1300 years (i.e since death of Holy Prophet), no one has had the opportunity to recite (this verse 9:127) before a congregation and God’s Rasul and mamur is actually sitting in front of him. Praise be to Allah, we are blessed”

    The issue of the raising of voice higher than a prophet is copy and pasted from another thread:

    At last that event did take place. In the year l900, Maulavi ‘Aabdul Karim, the preacher of the Friday sermon, gave a sermon in which he, used the words Nabi (Prophet) and Rasul (Messenger) for the Mirza. This caused great irritation to Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohawi. When Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim came to know of this, he gave another Friday sermon in which be  addressed the Mirza, requesting him to contradict his belief, if he was wrong in considering him to be a prophet and Messenger of God. After the Friday prayers were over, Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim caught hold of the skirt of  the Mirza’s apparel and requested him to correct him in his beliefs if they were erroneous. The Mirza turned around and said that he, too, held the same belief. Meanwhile, Maulavi Muhammad Ahsan had been greatly agitated by the sermon and in anger was pacing the floor of the mosque. On Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim’s return, he began to quarrel with him. When their voices rose very high, the Mirza came out of his house and recited the Qur’anic verse: “O ye who believe! Don’t raise your Voice above the voice of the Prophet.” (This event is based on the report of a speech of Sayyid Sarwar Shah Qadiani at an annual conference held in Qadian, and published in al- Fadhl, Vol. X, No.51, dated january.4,1923.. See also Haqiqat al- Nubuwat, p 124.) (XLIX.2)

  98. 4pac:
    “I am not a reference finder.” No, you merely present quotes with no concern for validating them.

    The so-called event is certainly not mentioned on p. 124 of Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwat (original edition, 1915), and as far as I could see, not anywhere else in that book either. So its first mention is more than 22 years later in the Jalsa of 1922!

    The second extract by 4pac contradicts the first one. In the first one, the verse “don’t raise your voice…” was read by Hazrat Mirza sahib in the alleged quarrel between Maulana Ahsan and Maulana Abdul Karim. In the second, it was read by Maulana Ahsan to an Iranian. And it is recorded in a book of proven inauthenticity.

    In any case, it is plain commonsense that the teaching “O ye who believe! Don’t raise your voice above the voice of the Prophet” does not only apply with regard to the Holy Prophet but also with regard to other persons (such as leaders, teachers), particularly when such a teacher is performing the function of teaching the message of Islam as the Holy Prophet used to do, and is acting in the Holy Prophet’s stead. This is recognised by, for example, Maulana Maudoodi, who writes under this verse:

    “Although this etiquette was taught for sitting in the Holy Prophet’s assembly and its addressees were the people who were living in his time, the people of the later ages also should observe the same respect and reverence on the occasion when the Holy Prophet’s name is mentioned, or a command of his is stated, or his sayings are explained. Besides, this verse also points out what attitude the people should adopt when talking to persons of a higher rank and status than themselves. A person’s talking before the men of a higher rank in a way as he talks before his friends or the common men, is in fact a sign that he has no respect for them in his heart, …”

    And the only way of reminding a Muslim of this teaching, with regard to a non-prophet, is by quoting this verse, which says “…the voice of the Prophet”!

    To Umar:

    No, Mr Umar you were *not* referring to the incident from Al Hakam (about verse 9:127/128), because remember you wrote: “when 2 of his followers were arguing over his status”. There is no mention in Al Hakam of two followers arguing over his claim.

    As to the verse you are now mentioning (9:127 or 128), I responded to this point one year ago in this comment. Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote that this verse (“messenger from among yourselves”) applies to: “those auliya who are known as rasul or nabi or muhaddas”.

  99. Muhammad Ali authenticated and dealt with this entire issue in 1915. Aren’t there any young Lahoris who could help you with this the research?

    Page 345-347

    Listen to me, you claim that your GOD was calling Mirza sahib as Esa since 1884, Mirza sahib claimed to be metaphorically born as Esa in that same era. At that point his claim was Maseel-e-Masih. He even denied being Esa in the same year….then. 7 years later he said that he was wrong all along.

    I am sure you know that in Haqeeqatul wahy Mirza sahib described his confusion on prophethood as the same in terms of his claim to be Esa.

  100. Mr. 4pac, you people claim to have almost all Muslims, that is more than one billion people, on your side ranged against Ahmadis. Can’t they help you to find the reference!

    The reference you have given to ‘Prophethood in Islam’ by Maulana Muhammad Ali where he quotes Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwah’s mention of Maulvi Abdul Karim is not the so-called incident mentioned by Umar. Where does it say in that quote from Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwah that a follower (i.e. Maulana Ahsan) had a quarrel with Maulvi Abdul Karim in front of Hazrat Mirza sahib about his claim?

    Only a year before this so-called incident, Maulvi Abdul Karim had published an incident between a follower and Hazrat Mirza sahib you can read here in Malfuzat. Now tell us, why does Maulvi Abdul Karim say here: “I swear by God that this increased my faith about Huzoor”? What was this statement by Hazrat Mirza sahib which increased his faith? Do tell us by reading it.

    It is pleasing to know that you have read the above book by Maulana Muhammad Ali because it is the greatest and most comprehensive work in the history of Islam on the finality of prophethood. If there was any confusion in Hazrat Mirza sahib’s teachings, Maulana Muhammad Ali could not have written such a lucid, coherent and clear book, proving the finality of prophethood.

    Hazrat Mirza sahib never claimed to be Jesus. This is simply false propaganda. He always claimed to be maseel-i Maseeh.

    It is you and your ulama who are suffering from “confusion on prophethood”. You are confused whether Jesus, upon his return as you believe, will be a prophet or a follower (just like Christians are confused about how much Jesus was God and how much a human).

    You are so confused that your attorney in 1974 (as I showed above) gave quotations from Hazrat Mirza sahib to show that he believed in finality of prophethood only before 1890. But the quotations he presented in order to show the so-called “earlier belief” were from after 1890, one from as late as 1898!

    Notwithstanding the change from time to time of the attitude of the public towards the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a reader of his writings cannot discover the least difference between the Ahmad of to-day and the Ahmad of the time of the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya. … The one theme of all his writings is the superiority of Islam over all other religions because of the continuity of the gift of Divine revelation in this religion. It is on this that he laid stress thirty years ago, and it is on this that he lays stress to-day. …
    His belief with regard to the excellence of the Holy Prophet over all other prophets has also been the same throughout, and we find it stated in his earliest writings in poetry as well as in prose that no Divine blessing can be attained except through the Holy Prophet. This is the doctrine which he teaches now when he says that no old prophet can come back, but that it must be a follower of the Holy Prophet who should be raised to the dignity of the Messiah,
    — Maulana Muhammad Ali in the Review of Religions, June 1906, p. 253–254.

  101. Dear Lahoris Ahmadis,
    After reviewing the data, here are some fresh conclusions, 
    It seem that the Mahmud Ahmad commented on some speeches of Maulvi Abdul Kareem in the year 1900.  Mahmud Ahmad claimed that it was Maulvi Abdul Kareem was the individual responsible for popularizing the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib.  However, Mahmud Ahmad appears to only have mentioned a few speeches and not the quarrel between Maulvi Abdul Kareem and the Amrohi.  However, Sarwar Shah and the Al-Fazl did mention the incident.  All of these haphazard references point to a 2-3 week period in 1900.  They seem to be mixed up somehow.  Further, it is not me who is being contradictory here, it is your Qadiani jamaat.  And..this isn’t new.  Mahmud Ahmad couldn’t even matriculate, hence, most of his explanations have holes in them.  You people harped about his date of 1902 as the date of prophethood as written by Mahmud Ahmad in Qaul al Fasl, however, it was a minor error by Mahmud Ahmad.  How can you expect him to properly reference and properly argue?  You people know quote well about his academic struggles. 
    Mr. Aziz, 990,000 million Muslims have no idea what Ahmadiyyat is.  Nor do they have the academic ability to research your religion thoroughly for debate.  A few of us have had connections with ex-Ahmadis which have allowed us to read the arguments and counter-arguments and thus have an understanding for Ahmadi polemics. 
    Maulvi Abdul Kareem was denying the prophethood in 1899, however, in 1900, he began to promote it.  Your precious Mirza sahib appears to have planned this perfectly.  He purposely denied being a prophet in 1891, however, he claimed to be the “like of” prophets.  Similarily, he claimed to be the “like-of” of Esa or “Maseel e Maseeh” in 1883 or 1884, 7 years later he eventually claimed to be “the-second-coming” of Esa.  And this is exactly what Mirza sahib wrote in 1907 when he was questioned about this entire matter. 
    One more thing, there was an Ahmadi who left Ahmadiyyat shortly after reading “correction of an error”.  He most properly accused Mirza sahib of a new claim, i.e. prophetood.  Amrohi wrote his letter in this context, that is the context of trying to reel in an ex-Ahmadi.  Obviously, it didnt work.  This is a proof against you.  Also, Maulvi Sanaullah accused Mirza sahib of claiming prophethood in 1901.   
    In Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, Part 3, Roohani Khazain Vol1, on page 593, MGA said: “It has been revealed to me that this humble self in my Poverty and Humility and Reliance on God and Sacrifice and According to Signs and Radiances, is an copy of the first life of Maseeh; and this humble self’s nature and the nature of Maseeh resembles each other so much as if two pieces of the same atom or two seeds of the same tree.” [1883]
    He also wrote :
    Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.192
    “I have never claimed to be the Messiah ibne Maryam. Anyone who accuses me of it, he is absolutely a liar and fabricator. I have been constantly announcing for the last seven to eight years that I am Maseel Maseeh, that is, Hazrat Issa AS’s certain spiritual properties and nature and habits and virtues has been given to me as well by God AlMighty.”
    MGA also wrote:

    “I do not claim that I am Issa son of Mary and I do not believe in transmigration of souls. I only claim that I am Maseel Maseeh…. My spiritual state resembles the spiritual state of Maseeh ibne Maryam.”
    (Advertisement by Mirza Ghulam vol 1 p.23 dated)
    Yahya Bakhtiar made some minor referencing mistakes…you shouldn’t harp on those.  Lets see how many mistakes you find in the above.  I hope you understand that we are not here to expose minor errors in reference work.  We are here to discuss the overall claim of being the Promised Messiah by Mirza sahib in relation to his claim of prophethood.  And how those claims were equally misunderstood and thus elevated over the years. 
    And finally, per Mahmud Ahmad, Mirza sahib was a prophet and the Promised Messiah since 1880 and the Mahdi, and Krishna, and Buddha, etc etc etc.

  102. You are reaching “some fresh conclusions” now, after the anti-Ahmadiyya have had over a hundred years to consider these issues! In Pakistan they said in 1974 that they had finally settled a 90 year-old issue!

    —“Further, it is not me who is being contradictory here, it is your Qadiani jamaat.”

    But you have been presenting their version of events, about change of claim, as factually correct. So now you cannot continue doing that, and you should in the interests of truth tell Qadianis that they are being contradictory and that you yourself had to suffer embarrassment by accepting their version.

    You saying to us “your Qadiani Jamaat” reminds me that when Muslims tell the critics of Islam that Islam is a peaceful religion, the critics tell them to look at the actions of people of “your religion”. Is it correct to say that people of “your” religion shoot girls who want to go to school?

    —“Mr. Aziz, 990,000 million Muslims have no idea what Ahmadiyyat is. Nor do they have the academic ability to research your religion thoroughly for debate.”

    Your claim is that the entire Muslim Ummah has declared Ahmadis as kafir. Of course this is through their religious scholars. That Ummah of over one billion must have a huge number of such scholars that you could call upon.

    My question about the 1899 quote from Maulvi Abdul Karim was: Why does he say here: “I swear by God that this increased my faith about Huzoor”? A follower wanted to elevate Hazrat Mirza sahib’s status. Mirza sahib was furious and repudiated him, and expressed a lower status than what the follower wanted. And Maulvi Abdul Karim says this increased his faith! Why does he say that? This is a genuine question, to which you would know the answer if you removed your bias and malice.

    —“Similarily, he claimed to be the “like-of” of Esa or “Maseel e Maseeh” in 1883 or 1884, 7 years later he eventually claimed to be “the-second-coming” of Esa…”

    So you are suggesting that after 1891 he never expressed his claim as being that of maseel-i Masih?

    —“Amrohi wrote his letter in this context, that is the context of trying to reel in an ex-Ahmadi.”

    You say Amrohi only wrote it to convince the so-called ex-Ahmadi that there was no change in claim in “Ayk Ghalati ka Izala”. What would then happen if Ahmadis read the letter? Wouldn’t they be asking: why are you telling him this, when our belief is the opposite?

    —“Yahya Bakhtiar made some minor referencing mistakes…you shouldn’t harp on those. Lets see how many mistakes you find in the above…”

    Of course you don’t want me to harp on those because they demolish his case! YB wasn’t in a debate on a blog, he was presenting a case as attorney-general to a legislature which was going to pass a law, in fact amend the constitution, against a section of the population. Any such error by him has serious consequences. If you make a mistake, no one cares! If I point out any mistake by you, it is hardly any achievement by me that I found the mistakes of an ignorant, obsessive imbecile.

    You claim to have a better mastery of the issues than Yahya Bakhtiar did. Above you also claimed to belong to an exclusive group which has the best understanding on these matters than anyone among 1 billion Muslims. These claims are ridiculous and in the realms of pure fantasy. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be hiding behind anonymous names because of your lack of confidence and your fear of embarrassment. Muslim organisations would be hailing your work.

    You have in the meanwhile submitted another comment consisting only of a quotation from Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, which Qadianis present against us, and you ask the same question that they do.

    (1) You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Maulana Muhammad Ali answered this in the very book whose link you gave me above. (2) You have already suffered embarrassment by presenting the Qadiani version of events and then had to blame them for the contradictions in it. You didn’t learn a lesson from it, did you? (3) Obviously you can’t think for yourself, which is why you are relying on Qadiani material!

  103. To the all Lahori Ahmadis
    The matter of Ahmadiyyyat will never be settled.  In fact, even you admit that 90% of Ahmadis are on the wrong path.  The Lahoris have failed in trying to allegedly correct the extreme tendencies from the sons of your Messiah, that being said, how can you call us the failure?  Muhammad Ali sahib competed against a youth that failed his matriculation, however, Muhammad Ali was not able to reel in the bulk of Ahmadis, nor was he able to end the business ventures of Mahmud Ahmad sahib.  In Ahmadiya research, fresh conclusions come to us regularly, we cover a subject matter of quite possibly 100,000 pages.  We find new frauds daily. 
    –I still consider the “tabdili-aqidah” in terms of prophetood as valid, just as I consider the tabdili-aqidabh in terms of Esa as valid Qadiani dogma.  However, it was explained in such a way that most Ahmadis/Muslims/Christians would not have noticed.  However, 1 Ahmadi did notice and immediately left Ahmadiyyat.  This is the context with which the Amrohi wrote that letter.  The Qadianis have made many mistakes over the years as they battled with Lahoris, that doesn’t make their claims false.  Obviously, most Ahmadis didn’t care.  The extremist elements of Pakistan were encouraged and armed by the USA and the powers to be behind democracy.  You should blame them for arming Muslims during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.  They are the ones responsible for militancy in the region.  What about Columbia?  Do you wish to blame mainstream Islam for the violence of that country? 
    —Our scholars have already issued Fatwas vs. your Messiah circa 1891.  There is nothing left to ask.  You are asking why did Maulvi Karim say that Mirza sahib’s denial of prophethood increased his faith?  I hope I am understanding this question properly.   I feel that most Ahmadis praised and honored Mirza sahib no matter what he said.  The Qadianis report that Noorudin sahib wrote once in 1891-era that even Mirza claimed prophethood he would still follow him.  The list goes on and on.  The fact is…Maulvi Abdul Karim was at the forefront of the claim of prophethood of Mirza sahib.  And he died abruptly in 1906-07, so, our witness was dead by the time the split happened in 1914.  Maulvi Abdul Karim was quite possibly even more higher ranking than Noorudin sahib.   Mahmud Ahmad sahib quoted a few speeches of Abdul Karim from this era, I am sure that if further research is conducted here, we will find more. 
    —Mirza sahib never backed off of his claims.  You are asking if he abandoned the claim of Maseel e Maseeh…my answer is NO.  Why would he?  Did he back off from his claim to mujadididyat?  NO!!  He had risen way above that, however, he never backed off of it.  Did he claim to be Maseel e Maseeh after 1891…we haven’t seen any such reference.  If there is…please post it.  And make sure its not from a book pre-1891 that was published after 1891 like Izala Auham, Siraj Munir, and a few others.   Mirza sahib was very famous for publishing writings after the fact, or claiming success from straw-man writings.  
    — In that letter, the Amrohi is simply stating that there Mirza sahib is not a claimant of independent prophethood, or traditional prophethood.  Mirza sahib’s prophethood is the same as Muhammad’s propethood.  If you ask the Qadianis, they still believe that Muhammad was the final prophet.  They believe that Mirza sahib’s propehtood is the same as Muhammad’s.  I’m sure agree with me, in that the Qadianis have purposely confused the matter.  Amrohi did the same here.  Finally, Amrohi quotes Mirza sahib as such:  ‘I am neither a prophet nor an apostle in the sense which they have in mind.’.  This means that Mirza sahib is still denying prophethood in the traditional sense, i.e. independent prophethood. 

    –You don’t demolish his case.  Give it a rest.  His case was against the belief system of Ahmadis and how Ahmadis HIDE their true nature from their fellow brethren as they seek converts, you agree with us here.  Are you saying that in the entire manuscript you found a few referencing mistakes and that’s it?  What about the fact that the Lahori delegation asked for someone to speak on behalf of them?  Couldn’t Maulvi Sadr-udin defend Lahorism on his own?  And why was Abdul Mannan constantly reading off of a speech that he prepared?  I am claiming that in 2012, we have the internet!!!  Most of your references are easily accessible.  In 1974, it was very hard to reference.  Now, do you understand what I mean when I say that we are more prepared now?  Ahmadis have people who have dedicated their lives to defending Ahmadiyyat…how can we compete?  
    1,2,3 ——I have recently read Prophethood in Islam.  And yes, I had read that quote from Haqiqatul Wahy, in fact, I typed it out and then posted it on your blog.  I read Muhammad Ali’s sahib so-called rebuttal.  I can tell you, he didn’t cover Maseel e Maseeh the way that he should have.  And he had lots of motive to gloss over it.  That statement proves the Qadiani case strongly.  In the same way that Mirza sahib claimed to be the Promised Messiah, referring to the 7 years of confusion, in that same way he claimed prophethood, however, in prophethood he claimed 20+ years of confusion.  And…Maulvi Sanuallah wrote about it as such in 1908.  

    If I missed anything, please point it out and I will write it the again.   

  104. I will focus on the point which shows the fraudulent and deceitful techniques employed by 4pac and his friends. They present an allegation or conjecture like a fact, while knowing they have little basis for it. When it is refuted, they pretend that they weren’t making that allegation, never admitting that they made a false allegation.

    Regarding the claim to be Maseel-i Masih, he wrote above:

    “Listen to me, you claim that your GOD was calling Mirza sahib as Esa since 1884, Mirza sahib claimed to be metaphorically born as Esa in that same era. At that point his claim was Maseel-e-Masih. He even denied being Esa in the same year….then. 7 years later he said that he was wrong all along.”

    “Similarily, he claimed to be the “like-of” of Esa or “Maseel e Maseeh” in 1883 or 1884, 7 years later he eventually claimed to be “the-second-coming” of Esa.”

    It is clear he is alleging that after 1891 Hazrat Mirza sahib stopped expressing his claim as Maseel-i Masih since he had, allegedly, progressed to the higher claim of being the second coming of Jesus.

    Then when I asked “So you are suggesting that after 1891 he never expressed his claim as being that of maseel-i Masih?”, 4pac got worried and to pre-empt my reply he has now written:

    “Did he claim to be Maseel e Maseeh after 1891…we haven’t seen any such reference. If there is…please post it. And make sure its not from a book pre-1891 that was published after 1891 like Izala Auham, Siraj Munir, and a few others.”

    In other words he is so ignorant that, as he says, “we haven’t seen any such reference”, but this doesn’t stop him from making allegations.

    He thinks that may be there is the odd reference, and is preparing to reply that those are in pre-1891 books published after 1891. He mentions Siraj Munir. He must be aware of the challenge I issued on this blog in response to Bashir (see link) when he made that allegation about this book. My challenge was: Give me the number of any page out of the one hundred pages of Siraj Munir, and I will show that it was written after 1891, in many cases several years after 1891.

    Now 4pac has slipped up in his technique. He has clearly stated that Siraj Munir was a pre-1891 book, so there is no retreat left for him from this allegation. My challenge proves that he is wrong.

    Also, the claim of being Maseel-i Masih is not only mentioned but argued and discussed by Hazrat Mirza sahib in his later books. Most people who have read his books know this. 4pac should find out such references by the research he claims to be doing!

    But in the bizarre world of the deceitful anti-Ahmadiyya, like 4pac, when they make an allegation they don’t have to prove it, but the accused have to disprove it!

    Then look at this double-dealing fraud:

    “In Ahmadiya research, fresh conclusions come to us regularly, we cover a subject matter of quite possibly 100,000 pages.”

    “I am claiming that in 2012, we have the internet!!! Most of your references are easily accessible.”

    These are the people who have got Ahmadiyya literature banned wherever they could, especially in Pakistan where an Ahmadi can be arrested for distributing any such book including books by Maulana Muhammad Ali. And here he is telling us they are doing research in the same literature and how it is useful for it to be on the Internet!

    Well, 4pac, it is not only you who have got the Internet (although you must deeply wish that only you people controlled it). Other lesser mortals have also got the Internet and can read all our books, even in Pakistan, which you banned people from reading. They can see how this literature served Islam.

    What makes the Internet a useful tool to 4pac and his ilk is that, like other modern inventions, it also provides newer opportunities to deceive and defraud people, which 4pac and his friends are doing with relish.

  105. December 6th, 2012 at 2:00 am
    From Mohammed Iqbal:


    Now that 1974 NA proceedings is out and you are freely using it, would you also ask for the publication of Samdani Commission Report?

  106. Dear Lahoris,
    —Firstly, why don’t you simply write an article on the ins and outs of the confusion that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib had on his claim to be the Promised Messiah?  Wouldn’t that solve this inquiry?  Then, would you allow a critique on that subject in terms of the claim of prophethood by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib?  Wouldn’t that solve all our controversies here?  Instead, you using the same technique that the Ahmadis used in the 1974 hearings.  You are avoiding and deflecting.  Insha Allah, I will try to tangle with you and post my answers to your inquiries. 
    —-The questions posed by Zahid Aziz sahib are inconsequential.  It doesn’t matter what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib did with his claim of Maseel e Masih.  What matters here is the fact that his God was trying to tell him that he was the Promised Messiah as early as 1882-3.  However, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib misinterpreted those revelations and then watered them down.  The exact same process happened with his claim of prophethood.  From 1891 to Nov. 1901 he misinterpreted his prophethood and thus watered it down and presented it to the world.  Later on, he explained that he had been a prophet since the beginning which is 1880. Moreover, I am sure that you know that the Qadianis back-date Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s prophethood to 1880 in some cases.  The same could possibly be said about his claim to Messiahship.  And remember….in 1891, after he claimed Messiahship, he didn’t require his followers to take a fresh bait. 
    —-I am not sure what statements were made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib in terms of Maseel e Maseeh after 1891, or after his claim of Messiahship.  However, I did see some statement in Izala Auham, as we all know, portions of Izala Auham were written before 1891, or before the claim of Messiahship.  I have this reference for your review:
    Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.192
    “I have never claimed to be the Messiah ibne Maryam. Anyone who accuses me of it, he is absolutely a liar and fabricator. I have been constantly announcing for the last seven to eight years that I am Maseel Maseeh, that is, Hazrat Issa AS’s certain spiritual properties and nature and habits and virtues has been given to me as well by God AlMighty.”
    After this the above statement, we have never seen any statement after 1891 wherein Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib claimed to be Maseel e Masih.  If you have them, please post them, Muhammad Ali listed 200+ references wherein Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib denied prophethood in 1915.  
    —-I never got worried…why is this conversation about worry?  If you are honest, then honestly present your claims and don’t worry about the backlash.  If someone asks you for a detailed explanation of Maseel e Masih..why don’t you simply give them one?  And then, get ready for a rebuttal. I am not asking you for personal information here.  I am simply asking questions about your belief system.  You should give a proper response.  Please don’t gloss over the issue.  
    —-As we all know, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib was in the habit of writing books and then publishing them at the opportune time.  Istifta is another example, portions of that were written in the late 1880’s, however, that pamphlet wasn’t published til after Lekh Ram died in 1897.  We all know that Tiryaq ul qulub was delayed.  And…Braheen e Ahmadiyyat vol. 5 was published in the winter of 1908.  However, there is no evidence as to when it was written.  There are no announcements to that effect, in fact, I was never able to find any news on its publishing as well. You would think that a book of that magnitude would have gotten some press in Ahmadi newspapers.  
    —-Your challenge on Siraj Munir is again inconsequential.  Why do you keep up with this non-sense.  Can we focus on the issues here? 
    —-Well…even if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib mentioned his claim of Maseel e Masih in later books….what difference does it make?  You are again focusing the entire bulk of your time on inconsequential details.  The real issue here is the misapprehension of your founder in terms of his claim of Messiahship and the relationship with his claim to prophethood.  You have cautiously glossed over the crux of the matter here.  We want to learn more about your religion…we don’t know everything.  Our work continues, we were stung by the bane of colonialism, as a result of that, a small portion of us were led astray..our goal is to educate them.  Nothing more and nothing less.  However, everytime we engage the Ahmadis, we get nothing but misdirection and a lack of co-operation. 
    —We are simply educating people about Ahmadiyyat.  Would you call a women’s rights group as anti-men? 
    —Finally, I earnestly implore you to stick to the topic here.  Don’t go off track.  I provided a reference in the above from Izala Auham, honestly comment on that.  Tell us how and why this appeared in that book.  Then, tell us why Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had confusion on his claim of Messiahship.  Please. 

  107. 4pac has now been defeated comprehensively and he has run away from my questions. All that I stated about his deceitful tactics has been proved true by his response.

    He claimed that Siraj Munir was a pre-1891 book and told me not to quote from it in any discussion on the Maseel-i Masih claim. I showed him my earlier challenge, to name any page from its 100 pages, and I will prove that it was written well after 1891. He replies by calling it “inconsequential” and “non-sense”. So he is the judge himself. He raises the issue himself, but when his allegation is smashed to pieces, he says that we are not focussing on the real issues.

    He has run away from the challenge even without knowing whether I could fulfil it or not! Could it be just a bluff by me? He dare not pick a page number from 1 to 100 to test my challenge.

    It is my belief (rightly or wrongly) that Allah caused these people to make this allegation about Siraj Munir, so as to bring them to disgrace by having mentioned a book every page of which (every page literally) falsifies their allegation.

    As to Maseel-i Masih, 4pac had been repeating that Hazrat Mirza sahib raised his claim in 1891 from being Maseel-i Masih to being “Esa”. Obviously, if he actually became Jesus, he wouldn’t be continuing to claim to be the “like of Jesus”! Now that 4pac is desperately worried and panicking that I might show him some post-1891 references to being Maseel-i Masih, he plays it both ways:

    1. “we have never seen any statement after 1891 wherein Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib claimed to be Maseel e Masih.”

    2. “Well…even if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib mentioned his claim of Maseel e Masih in later books….what difference does it make?”

    So, 4pac asks us to show such later statements. If we can’t find any, he wins. If we can find several, (guess what) he doesn’t lose because it doesn’t make any difference! What more proof is required of his fraud!

    He says: “If you have them, please post them”. But they are all on the Internet. Let me quote 4pac from his comment before last:

    “I am claiming that in 2012, we have the internet!!! Most of your references are easily accessible.”

    Correct. Then go ahead and access them!

    You could start by accessing the quote you have given from Izala Auham, the quote which you allege is pre-1891 and before the claim to Messiahship. Just read from six pages before your reference through to a few pages after and you will find out if this reference is pre or post Messiahship.

    He continues the above statement: “In 1974, it was very hard to reference. Now, do you understand what I mean when I say that we are more prepared now?”

    You are “more prepared” now, and yet you are asking me to provide you with references!

    He writes: “We are simply educating people about Ahmadiyyat. Would you call a women’s rights group as anti-men?”

    You are educating others, while you are so ignorant that you couldn’t look up your own given reference above, and you failed to understand the page I posted of Maulvi Abdul Karim’s account of an incident of 1899.

    “A women’s rights group” would be recognised by other women outside that group as fighting on their behalf. No other Muslim or Muslim group whatsoever recognises you as fighting for Muslims.

    Lastly, I advise you to go back to your masters (and also to your Qadiani sources) who have been feeding you this misinformation and tell them what terrible humiliation and embarrassment you have had to suffer by believing them, while they are hiding and leaving you hung out to dry.

    As you have been thoroughly defeated, routed and your designs exposed, we will not engage with you in further discussion.

  108. Sometimes you come across a writing which inspires and moves you. Here is such a passage by Maulana Muhammad Ali in his last booklet written in Urdu reflecting on his life’s work. (The bolding is mine.)

    “All I can say about myself is that if Almighty God had not guided me towards this work, I would, like my fellow-students, have become at best a successful lawyer or judge. But the man who directed me to this work, then set me on this path, and guided me correctly is the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. At a time when I had gone into a worldly path, he not only pulled me out of the mire of this world but also created within me a light of faith that has stayed with me throughout this struggle. I declare it openly that if the Imam and Mujaddid of this age had not guided me, I was not capable of doing this work. I received a spark of the light which filled his breast.

    The nineteenth century of the Christian era had drawn to a close. In exactly the year 1900, when I was on my way to Gurdaspur to start my law practice, with all arrangements completed, the premises rented, and my belongings and books moved there, my Guide took me by the hand and said: You have other work to do, I want to start an English periodical for the propagation of Islam to the West, you will edit it. What great fortune that, on hearing this voice, I did not hesitate for a moment as to whether I should start this work or the work for which I had prepared myself.

    This periodical was issued on 1 January 1902 under the title The Review of Religions. In 1909 I began the English translation of the Holy Quran. When I look back today, after half a century, I fall before God in gratitude that He gave me such long respite and enabled me to do so much work.

    In reality, this is not my work. It is the work of the one who took my hand and set me on this road. And not only myself, but whoever went to him he put a spark of the fire of the love of God in the heart of that disciple. Just like me, the late Khawaja Kamal-ud-Din too, by sitting at the feet of the Imam of the age, was blessed with opening the first Islamic mission to Europe at Woking, shedding such light on the teachings of Islam and the life of the Holy Prophet Muhammad that the entire attitude of Europeans towards Islam changed. Not only this, that Mujaddid produced thousands of people whose hearts ached with the urge to spread Islam, and who gave their lives and wealth to spread the Divine faith in the world.

    To those people who harbour ill-feeling against the honoured Mujaddid, or who fail to give him the respect and love due to such a servant of the faith, I say: Has there ever been in the world a liar and imposter who filled the hearts of his followers with such an urge for the propagation of Islam, and to whom Almighty Allah gave so much help as to continue fulfilling his dreams and aspirations long after his death? In the beginning we did not have the longing that Islam should spread in the world. It was the yearning of the Imam of the age who set us on this work, and set us on it so firmly that the longing which was in his heart was disseminated to thousands of other hearts. . . .

    Whatever work of the propagation of Islam we have done up to today, whether it is little or much, it is all the outcome of his inner urge which Allah had strengthened with the power of His own Will. And Allah caused the foundations of the propagation of Islam in English-speaking countries to be laid by the hands of a man who himself was a complete stranger to the English language.”
    (Jama’at-i Qadian aur har Musalman kay li’y lahma fikriyya, pp. 8-11.)

    This is far more effective than any dry discussion of beliefs and throwing references at each other. But as to hearts of stone, it will bounce off them without effect.

  109. December 17th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
    From Rationalist:

    Lahoris were ripped apart…

    We have now translated the entire Lahori discussion into english. My friends have done this in an attempt to bring this discussion to the world.

    At one point, Masood Baig admitted that he had trapped himself.

    Have a nice day!

  110. Thank you for posting this link. I have looked at the English translation which your friends have done “now”. I presume “now” means that the translation has been done since the National Assembly proceedings were recently published.

    Please confirm that your translation of the proceedings of 27th August 1974, in which Lahoris were questioned, which is from page 354 to 415 of your pdf file, is a full and accurate translation of the National Assembly Proceedings for that day, which are on pages 1511 to 1717 (pdf file pages 783 to 886).

    Please confirm, in particular, that the statements your translation attributes to Maulana Sadruddin correspond to what he is reported to have said in the National Assembly record, and similarly that the statements your translation attributes to Mirza Masud Baig correspond to what he is reported to have said in the National Assembly record.

  111. December 19th, 2012 at 6:14 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Could Political Majority Always Be Right? And Should Its Decisions Always Be Accepted?
    During Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad testimony in 1974 National Assembly, Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar asked many stupid questions to justify National Assembly can enact law that prohibits someone’s religious practices.
    Pakistani Muslims in defense of 2nd amendment that declared Qadiani-Ahmadis and Lahori-Ahmadis as non-Muslim (in Arabic ‘Kafir’) hold position that since Majority of National Assembly members passed this amendment so it has to be correct.
    I ask these Pakistani Muslims, do they too accept that French Law of banning Hijab, or French Law (in process) to ban Halal Meat, or Swiss Law of banning construction of Mosque Minarets, or worse Neitherland Law (if enacted) of banning Holy Quran or its some portion (that deals with Jihad) are/will be correct, just because Majority of members of their respect legislative bodies passed/pass it?

  112. December 19th, 2012 at 6:15 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Mirza Nasir Ahmad Acknowledgement of Qadiani Organizational Support for PPP in 1970 Elections.

    In 1970 General Elections in Pakistan, Pakistan People Party (PPP) won. It is a known fact, although never acknowledged in public by Qadiani Khalifas, that their organization at organizational level, in form of votes, finances, and manpower supported PPP. That brought PPP into power and its Chairman Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto became Pakistan’s Prime Minister. (According to people who testified in Justice Samdani Inquiry Commission this nexus between PPP and Qadiani Organization is prominently identified. And it is the reason for PPP to not make it public to this day, to avoid embarrassment).

    In recently published report of In-camera 1974 Proceedings of National Assembly, on page 117 (pdf page 70) Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad in order to establish a good size Qadiani population in Pakistan quotes a political party (opponent of PPP) that PPP won because 21 Lakh (2.1 million) Adult Qadiani Volunteers helped PPP.

    In book ‘Last 323 Days of Bhutto’ by Col Rafi-ud-Din, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto told him that he declared Qadianis Kafir because they were acting as KING MAKERS the way Jews act in United States. It is also known fact in Pakistani Political History of 1970s that after Bhutto became Prime Minister, Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad and his brother later Qadiani Khalifa 4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad started political contact to build nexus with Pakistan Tahreek-e-Istaqlal Chairman Air Marshal (retired) Asghar Khan to keep Bhutto under Qadiani Khalifa pressure. Bhutto just outsmarted them. Unfortunately Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement became innocent bystander victim. According to Haqqiqat Passand Party leader Professor Chaudhry Ghulam Rasool sahib, it would have been much better if Bhutto had declared Qadiani Organization as Political Party and banned it. Confiscating their finances, publications and properties. This would have prevented LAM becoming victim and the government protection of fanaticism that is prevailing in Pakistan today.

  113. @Rashid – Let’s not also forget that in the beginning, Muslims were a minority in Makkah and Islam was a minority idea. The town hall meetings under Abu-Jahal and his cronies (aka Maulana Mufti Mahmud and Co.) had declared Islam and Prophet Muhammad as sacrilegious of the religion of their Holy Land (aka Pakistan). They not only passed resolutions (and laws) against Islam but even socially boycotted the Muslims and posted their decree (aka Amendment XX) on the door of Kaaba, which resulted in 3 years of banishment of Shab-e-Abi-Talib. We all know the rest of the atrocities against Muslim minority to the point that their same National assembly even passed a resolution to kill the Prophet.
    The bigots and ignorant of the types of Rationalists and 4pac will claim as their holy duty to abet the persecution of minority amongst midst, irrespective how righteous those minorities might be. Every time there is killing of innocent in the land of pure, have we ever heard even a sigh of protestation from their pens? Never, will one hear. They are all too reminders of historical Abu-Lahabs and Abu-Jahals of the yore and their re-incarnation in the present.
    These former Qadianis, now anti-HGMA ‘experts’ have the same arguments as that of Abu-Lahab, who used to taunt Muslims that since Surah Al-Lahab is part of Quran, now if he converts to Islam, their Quran will stand falsified. Neither, Abu-Lahab converted, neither Quran stood falsified. Neither will Rationalist and Co. be able to falsify the Mujaddid of our times.

  114. Comparing the National Assembly proceedings with Rationalist’s presented English translation, if you reach top of pdf page 361 of his English version, the same question is being asked in the NA proceedings on page 1536 starting 7 lines from the bottom (pdf page 796).

    The Attorney-General asks if Maulana Muhammad Ali entered into bai`at of Hakim Nur-ud-Din, and upon receiving the answer ‘yes’ from Mirza Masud Baig, the Attorney-general then asks: How could he then object (in 1914 against Mirza Mahmud Ahmad) that as I have taken bai`at of Mirza (Ghulam Ahmad) sahib I don’t need to take bai`at with the khalifa?

    What reply does Mirza Masud Baig give?

    According to Rationalist’s English version:

    “(No answer… remains quiet)”

    But according to the National Assembly transcript, Mirza Masud Baig replied (as translated into English by me below):

    “I will say about this that the Maulana (Muhammad Ali) sahib himself answered this. He said: I took bai`at at the hand of Hazrat Mirza sahib and after that at the hand of Maulana Nur-ud-Din. Neither of them instructed me to declare Muslims as kafir. But Mirza Mahmud Ahmad instructs me to do it. Because of this belief of his, I cannot enter into his bai`at. If Mirza Mahmud Ahmad gives up this belief, I will not refuse entering into his bai`at.”

    Going by their recent past form, people like Rationalist and 4pac are likely to reply that this difference in the two accounts is “inconsequential” and Zahid Aziz is again indulging in matters of trivial detail. Yes, in the bizarre world of anti-Ahmadiyya logic there is almost no difference between giving no answer and remaining quiet and giving a full answer! Blog readers can judge their mental condition from this.

  115. December 19th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    Dear Rationalist,

    Why don’t you campaign for the publication of Samadani Commission report? Will it not give you additional ammunition to nail the Ahmadies?

  116. Despite the circus of National Assembly proceedings of 1974, where the Prosecutor, Judge and Jury were the Mullahs, HMGA stood out as a Mujaddid from the testimony of AAIIL. The following is a summary by a reader who comments upon the observations of Justice Munir (of the famous Munir Enquiry Report of 1954) in his book, which is relevant to the current thread. Reader can judge for him/herself that ‘what a difference an impartial judge’ makes.
    AL-AHMADIYYA, Letters, p. 14-15, June-July 1980 [pdf download]

    I have just read FROM JINNAH TO ZIA by Chief Justice Munir (Retd.). The title is apparently misleading, a more appropriate title would have been, “Munir Report, Ahmadis, Muslims and Pakistan”, but even this would not have been exact. Nevertheless the book was very interesting. It appears to present various aspects of Ahmadis in an impartial manner, in fact, a great part of the book is devoted to Ahmadis and there is also a mention of the agitation which led Chaudhary Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan to resign from his post of Foreign Minister of Pakistan. Justice Munir has quoted Maulana Muhammad Ali throughout the book. On occasions his commentary is quoted along with others. This may indicate that Munir recognises the Lahore Ahmadis as a progressive people, (this conclusion was made after a full reading). Munir is also very critical of many so called ‘Ulama, Maulana Abul Ala Maududi (who died recently) and many others who are now or were actively involved in the polities of Pakistan, but at the time of establishing Pakistan were deadly against it, abusing Jinnah, calling PAKistan (land of the pure), NA-PAKistan (land of the impure), etc. In fact Munir has thoroughly condemned these characters and indirectly, partially, exposed them as terrible opportunists.
    Throughout his book he has stressed that Quad-i A’zam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was in favour of Pakistan being a Secular State with equal rights to the minorities, and it was only after his death that Liaqat All Khan decided to make a Constitution calling Pakistan a Muslim State.
    With regard to a very important question “Who is a Muslim?” he has exposed the views of the ‘Ulama and it comes across very clearly that they have no one definition of Islam. In fact, one may conclude from some declarations that all Shi’ahs are non-Muslims or vice versa all non-Shi’ahs are non-Muslims!
    While reading, it occurred to me, may be the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto declared Ahmadis not-Muslims as he was afraid that his government would eventually tumble like the one in the fifties when the then Prime Minister Khwajah Nazim-ud-Din decided that for the sake of law and order and its imposition he would clamp down on the agitators against the Ahmadis, instead of allowing their demand to be met. History has shown now that whatever way the decision went the government at that particular time came down prematurely. I do not know if the author’s writing was presented in such a way as to imply this, but this is my impression. I will send a copy to you for a detailed review in Al-Ahmadiyya.
    Clifton, Karachi, Pakistan Basharat Ahmad Tufail

  117. I have referred to this book (From Jinnah to Zia) in The Ahmadiyya Case and quoted from it in two places:

    History of the Case (near the end, under heading ‘Verdict of a Muslim Court’, point number 3).

    ‘Who is a Muslim?’, Supplementary Evidence (under heading number 3).

  118. December 20th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
    From Mohammed Iqbal:


    Why are you against LAM. After all they did not rob you or deny you education!

  119. Again comparing Rationalist’s presented translation and the NA proceedings, the question/answer in Rationalist’s version on p. 360 of his pdf document corresponds to NA p. 1534 (pdf 795).

    After discussing that Maulana Muhammad Ali was not elected as head in 1914. Rationalist’s version reads:

    Attorney General: So that is why you separated; so, this has nothing to do with belief, rather…

    Masood Baig: (makes incomprehensible sounds… after some time) We had differences on the issue of calling other Muslims as Kaafir (infidels) and on the issue of prophet hood. That is why Maulana Muhammad Ali had not taken the oath of allegiance.

    According to the NA record, Mirza Masud Baig started his reply as follows:

    Sir, they did not separate because Maulvi Muhammad Ali was not elected. This was not the reason. As I have already said, they made efforts for unity for about a month and a half. They said: this change you (Mirza Mahmud Ahmad) have made to the Will of Hazrat (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) sahib is not right, nor are your beliefs. …

    I haven’t translated his reply in full for brevity, but it is more detailed than how Rationalist’s translation represents it, and there is no mention of any “(makes incomprehensible sounds… after some time)”.

    Quotation from Al-Hilal:

    Then according to the NA record, Mirza Masud Baig quoted in his support an article from Al-Hilal (Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s newspaper) about the split, beginning:

    “For a long time there had been two parties in this Jamaat on the issue of takfir…”

    Yahya Bakhtiar asks: Which year is this Al-Hilal from?

    Mirza Masud Baig: “Sir, I am presenting a quotation from Al-Hilal dated 20 March 1914. I am presenting it because the answer to your question may be found in it.” (p. 1535)

    Mirza Masud Baig goes on to read the quotation and it is reproduced in full in the NA proceedings (top of p. 1536).

    But Rationalist’s version makes no mention whatsoever of this quotation being presented and read out.

    After this quotation was read out, Yahya Bakhtiar made no comment but changed the subject to what I discussed in my earlier comment about why didn’t Maulana Muhammad Ali enter into the bai`at of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.

    That quotation from an independent source, who was a most famous scholar and personality himself, published at the very time in March 1914, about why the split occurred, silenced Yahya Bakhtiar. But the version of Rationalist omits that part altogether!

  120. Blog readers may be interested to read that quotation from Al-Hilal, the magazine of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, which I referred to in the last comment. It was published in the issue for 25 March 1914. Translated from Urdu, it is as follows:

    “For some time, there had been two parties in this Movement over the question of takfir. One party believed that non-Ahmadis are Muslims even though they may not believe in Mirza sahib’s claims. The other party, however, declared openly and clearly that those people who do not believe in Mirza sahib are kafir absolutely — innā li-llāhi wa innā ilai-hi rāji‘ūn. The head of the latter party is Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, and this faction has now made him khalifa but the first group does not accept this. The writing published in this connection by Maulvi Muhammad Ali, and the wonderful and admirable courage he has shown in expressing these views while staying in Qadian, where the heads of the other party live, is truly an event which shall always be regarded as a memorable event of this year.”

    Note: This issue of Al-Hilal is available online at the website of the Digital Library of India. I have confirmed this extract by reading it from that website yesterday.

  121. Blog readers may like to know that Rationalist (aka Islamic Knight) has sent two comments reverting to his form of throwing other allegations around. This is his usual trick to avoid answering the questions under discussion.

    To my point, he writes: “The errors that you people are claiming to have found should be submitted to the person who performed the translation. If you have a list, I can get those forwarded. … Why do you people harp on minor errors on our side then?”

    As I predicted he would do, he describes these “errors” as “minor”? It is a “minor error” to represent that a person gave no answer to a question in the NA when he gave a full answer!

    Rationalist wrote in his first comment:

    “We have now translated the entire Lahori discussion into english.”

    But now he is disclaiming responsibility and passing it to the person who did the translation. No, Rationalist, you as a part of “we” bear responsibility of spreading fabrication. You have proved yourself to be either very stupid in gullibly accepting what your friends told you, or you are involved in the fabrication knowingly. Either way you have lost all credibility and don’t have a shred of integrity left.

  122. It makes one wonder as to what Islam and what faith do Rationalist et al. represent? What is the source of their inspirations? Their style of arguments and modus operandi are neither found in Quran, nor Sunnah. They stoop so low that that they will not hesitate to fabricate their evidence as outlined by Dr. Aziz above. It is this kind of behavior that Quran addresses:
    29:11. Indeed, Allâh will bring to light those who believe, and He will also reveal the hypocrites.
    29:12. And those who disbelieve say to those who believe, `Follow our way and we will bear (the consequences of) your sins (at the time of judgment), whereas they can bear nothing whatsoever of their sins. They are as a matter of fact liars.
    29:13. (On the other hand) they will certainly have to bear the burdens of their own sins as well as (some) burdens (of leading others astray) over and above their own burdens. And they will be questioned on the Day of Resurrection about (the lies) that they used to fabricate. [Nooruddin]

  123. December 23rd, 2012 at 4:42 pm
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    But in one sense, we have to congratulate Mr. Rationalist for posting as Rationalist himself. In Hindu mythological parlance, it is called “Vishyaroop” and his fake identities “Avatars”.

  124. A classic case of ‘digging one’s own grave’ by Rationalist. He proudly made tall claims and gave to world the following link:

    On page 8 of the above pdf we have the following excerpted para which refers to South Africa Case (see link 1, link 2) i.e. in 1982, a member of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in Cape Town filed a civil suit against certain bodies of the Muslim religious leaders (principally, the MJC or Muslim Judicial Council) claiming that he is a Muslim and entitled to all the rights of a Muslim, but that these bodies are defaming him by branding the Lahore Ahmadis as unbelievers and apostates, and are also preventing him from exercising his rights as a Muslim because he is a Lahore Ahmadi. The Rationalist’s pdf on p. 8 states:

    Years ago, a case was launched against the Qadiyanis in the South African court. Rabita Alam e Islami Makkah contacted the then President of Pakistan, General Muhammad Zia ul Haq to send a delegation to South Africa to assist in the proceedings of this case. The Pakistani government deputed Maulana Taqi Usmani, Mr. Muhammad Afzal Cheema, Syed Riaz ul Hassan Gilani, Maulana Mufti Zain ul Abedin and Professor Ghazi Mehmood Ahmad to South Africa. Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz e Khatm e Nubuwwat (The International Organization to defend the Finality of Prophet hood) deputed Maulana Muhammad Yousuf Ludhianvi, Maulana Abdur Raheem Ash’ar and Mr. Abdur Rehman Yaqoob Bawa to represent it. General Zia ul Haq ordered to provide a copy of the complete discussion in the assembly regarding this issue in 1974 for reference. The copy of the discussion sent for reference to South Africa, combined with the personal notes of Maulana Mufti Mehmood, Maulana Ghulam Ghaus Hazarvi and Maulana Abdul Haq and the copies of daily proceedings provided to them, being the members of the assembly, this book is an authentic document bearing an authoritative and referral command on the topic.

    What the above tells us is that full force of Pakistan government was behind the defendants. And, not only that, they were also provided with the “secret” transcripts of the National Assembly of Pakistan of the 1974 proceedings. These proceedings were so “secret” that (again from page 8 of pdf):

    The Bhutto government did not publish this proceeding despite repeated commitments. Zia ul Haq, Junejo, Benazir Bhutto, Jatoi and Nawaz Sharif, none had the courage to publish this document.

    How shameful for the Mullahs that despite the fact that they had weeks of proceedings from the forum of their own choice i.e. National Assembly in which the Judge, Prosecution and the Jury were all for-about-by Mullahs and they still could not prove Lahori Ahmadi’s as non-Muslim in a court of law. They could not defend “the finality” of Prophet Muhammad PBUH, the last of the prophets. Rather, they disgracefully withdrew their case. They should change the name of the organization of “Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz e Khatm e Nubuwwat” to The International Organization to NOT TO defend the Finality of Prophet hood. Why did they not present the “greatest evidence” against the Lahoris in the court? Rather, one must state that their lawyers were wise enough not to present the National Assembly proceedings in front of the court. What chance did Nazi laws stood outside Hitler’s fiefdom?
    Thank you Rationalist in proving one thing at least that the National Assembly proceedings could not be produced in a court of law. Rather, they have no value for a court of law. They cannot stand a day in court of Justice. No court of Justice will tolerate a sham trial and a political circus. We rest our case. Allah-o-Akbar!
    If the Lahoris at that point had known that these proceedings were available to the defense in South Africa, the Lahoris would then had a merry day in court. A God sent manna from heavens. They would have subpoenaed them. They would have shredded the whole sham of National Assembly to pieces along with the Constitution of Pakistan. Alas! In terms of fishing stories – “The big one that got away.”
    Maybe in future whatever Rationalist and his cohorts write or defame on the web might turn out to be a test case for libel to bring these National Assembly proceedings into a court of Law outside Pakistan. Maybe…

  125. We were aware a few years ago of the Urdu book whose English translation Rationalist has so helpfully drawn to our attention. Had he not done so, we might have forgotten about this book. But now, with the publication of the actual NA proceedings, it is proved that this book distorted and misrepresented them.

    While Ikram speculates about a possible libel case, which of course would be a civil matter, there may in fact be grounds for a criminal prosecution also. This Urdu book was published in Pakistan, compiled and published by citizens of Pakistan. We have proved (after Rationalist drew our attention to the book) that it has fabricated the record of the proceedings of the National Assembly of Pakistan. That should be cause for criminal charges to be brought by the legal authorities of Pakistan against the authors.

    In a court case, apart from having to prove that the defendants committed the act they are charged with, you have to show the damage done by their act. The damage done here was to mislead people into believing that this book was an accurate record of the NA proceedings. To prove that, the prosecution could summon Rationalist to the witness stand to testify that he himself was mislead in this way.

    The publication of the NA proceedings was already working in our favour, by the help and grace of Allah, when Rationalist, acting impetuously and unwisely, added layers upon layers of icing on that cake for us.

  126. December 30th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
    From Rationalist:

    @ Zahid

    GO and kiss white people’s asses again…you aren’t touching us.  If you were in India 100 years ago you might survive too..  Go to Peshawar with that non-sense..them boys will run you out of town.  

    You see, Lahoris Ahmadis are those Indians who wish to embrace white-culture.  They will never condemn British behaviors in South Africa, however, they will fight to be Muslims…

    Face it…your children dont care about Islam anymore…your mission failed.  


  127. Blog readers, I have published the above comment from Rationalist (or Islamic Knight) in its full and exact form as received. I was not going to publish anything from him which was not relevant to answering the questions I asked him about that English translation whose link he gave us, but his comment proves that he has no answers for those questions which we put to him in a civilized way, and thus he is resorting to abuse.

    Isn’t it true, Mr Rationalist, that you believed that translation to be the English translation of the actual NA proceedings and you presented it to us as such? You should be directing your wrath towards the people who misled you. You should be proclaiming your innocence and blaming them for having fooled you.

  128. January 1st, 2013 at 5:37 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    “Rationalist” writes: “GO and kiss white people’s asses again…”
    HMGA and his followers in LAM are accused for over hundred years by Mullah for KISSING Empress of India, Queen Victoria of British Empire. HMGA was born and lived in country ruled by the QUEEN OF BRITISH EMPIRE.
    Let’s see what “Rationalist” heros did, while they had choice to “Kiss or not to Kiss White Behind” of current Queen of British Empire:
    1-Khatam-e-Nabuwat-Academy, UK Mullahs and their SPOKESMAN Akbar Chaudhry took oath on becoming Citizen of UK:

    “I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.” owner Ahmad Karim Shaikh and other Mullahs, including the famous “Shaikh-ul-Islam” Tahir-ul-Qadri took oath on becoming Citizen of Canada:
    “I, [name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God”
    3-M.Sadiq (or A. Sadiq who claims to hold a Ph.D and is some sort of Professor in Australia, who also wrote and moderated under user-Id “Muslim1” on took oath on becoming Citizen of Australia:
    “I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!
    Oaths of Allegiances of UK, Canada, Australia, New Zeland:

  129. January 1st, 2013 at 6:55 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    The well known historian of Pakistan, K.K. Aziz, has written in detail about Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s highly appreciative views of the British rule of India, and given a selection of views of other Muslim leaders including those who opposed Ahmadiyyat. See this link.

    The following are quotations from K.K. Aziz from his book cited in the above link:

    Abdullah Yusuf Ali was an unabashed admirer of British imperialism, the British Indian Empire and British culture and political acumen. (p. 291)

    Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, the fearless editor of Zamindar of Lahore, who prided himself on his love of Islam and his hatred of Christian rule over India, wrote to King George V in an open letter on 22 November 1934, “Sire, I fully know the deep feelings of the eight crore [eighty million] Musalmans of India who accept Your Majesty as their emperor.” (p. 292–293)

    Iqbal’s writings provide us with several proofs of his deepseated and unconcealed allegiance, even obsequiousness, to the British. On Queen Victoria’s death on 22 January 1901 (which day was also the id-ul-fitr), he composed an elegy of 110 couplets, praising the deceased Empress, paying servile tributes to her, grieving for the loss, and calling her death a muharram for the Muslims of India. The poem was published at government expense. (p. 293)

    Incidentally, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan in his Open Letter to King George V was also denouncing and condemning Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad!

  130. Living under the British rule was an idea that Allama Iqbal did not abhor, rather welcomed it.

    “Iqbal expresses support for British rule over Muslims of India during his London visits in 1931–32. Says he never demanded a separate Muslim state outside British rule.” See this link with evidentiary proof from his letter to The Times of London and his speeches in London.

    History has proven that each one of them, HMGA, Iqbal, Abdullah Yusuf Ali were right to appreciate the British rule for what it offered, if nothing else the freedom of religion, freedom of thought, equal justice and security for all – the basic ingredients of a state and a civilized society that were lost with the departure of the British in what is now Pakistan. How sad and un-Rationalist.

    Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama was founded at Kanpur in 1894 in the first annual convention of Nadwatul Ulema (“Organisation of Scholars”) by Muhammad Ali Mongiri, Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Mahmud-ul-Hasan and Shibli Nomani with an idea to counter the challenge of western education. The institution was intended to be a modified version of Deoband.

    Nadwatul-Ulema held its first convention on April 22–24, 1894 (Shawwal 15-17, 1311 AH) in Madarsa Faiz-e-Aam. It was attended by a huge group of scholars from all sects of the ummah and all corners of the sub-continent including Maulana Abdullah Ansari (Founder Nazim-e-Diniyaat, MAO College) and Maulana Shibli Nomani, who were teachers of Arabic and Persian at MAO College. Maulana Shibli Nomani proposed Maulana Mufti Lutfullah to chair the opening session. According to Nawab Sadar Yaar Jang Maulana Habibur Rahman Khan Sherwani, Maulana Ibrahim Aaroomi and Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalwi were representing Ahle-Hadis (Salafi) delegation, Maulvi Ghulamul-Hasnain were representing Shia delegation. Maulana Shah Muhammad Hussain presented the organization’s objectives and Maulana Shibli Nomani presented the working guidelines (Dasturul-Amal).

    The foundation stone was laid by John Briscott Hewitt, Lieutenant Governor of India on November 28, 1906. (Wikipedia – link)

    At least no British ruler ever laid foundation stone of a building in Qadian. Yet, the efforts of big hitters Mullahs of the time including the famous “big hater” Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalwi’s (who was at the forefront to declare HMGA as kafir) were supported and funded by none other than the British crown, something quite fundamentally un-Rationalistic.

  131. It wasn’t only the laying of the foundation stone of the school building. In the welcome address presented to Sir John Hewitt, the administrators of the Nadwah said:

    “We are grateful from the bottom of our hearts for the land which your honour has granted us. Recently, your honour bestowed upon us a gift of Rs. 500 per month, for which we cannot sufficiently express our thanks.”

    See this link. 

  132. An interesting fact remains that a significant number of “saviors”, be they the Presidents or Prime Ministers or Party Chiefs of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan not only reside in the West, some emigrate to the West, others find refuge in the West and still others have Western citizenship and have pledged allegiance to the Queen – totally un-Rationalist?

    One such savior is “Allamah Doctor Professor Tahir-ul Qadri” from Canada who is an ‘expert’ on Quran and Law as he is a lawyer and was a professor of Law at University of Punjab.

    In the following Danish TV video on YouTube from 1:20 onwards see for yourselves the self-contradictions, evasiveness, deflection, ambiguous non-answers, plain lying and wrong interpretation of Quranic Law by the said savior in context of Blasphemy. Some even claim for him to be a Mujaddid:

  133. @Rashid, you highlited oath of citizenship in Canada and U.K, That has been picked up by the political parties and media. Listen to this video clip from 34:20 onwards

  134. January 5th, 2013 at 4:44 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Attorney General’s 10 Days preparation to Question Lahori-Party

    1974 NA Proceedings page 501 (pdf file page 265):

    There is conversation between Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiat and Speaker of National Assembly Sahibzada Farooq Ali. AG has asked Speaker to give him 10 days after he finishes questioning QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad, to prepare his questions for Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement witnesses.

    I am confident a fair minded person with fear of Allah SWT in his/her heart after reading LAM witness testimony could conclude that AG did a poor job even after an extended break. This only proves that AG, ZAB (PM Bhutto), PPP, and NA of 1974 did atrocity on LAM. And looking at Pakistan’s deteriorating condition from any angle it only proves Pakistan and its Citizens are facing the consequences for the sins of their fathers in 1974.  Even though Allah SWT gave chance to Pakistanis to correct themselves with warnings for more than 20 years. It is so sad that Pakistanis have turned out be worse than nation of Prophet Younas AS.

  135. January 5th, 2013 at 7:33 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Qadiani Leadership’s New Stunt

    QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad made tall claim that if 1974 NA Proceedings are published HALF of Pakistan will accept Qadiani Beliefs. QK4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad made taller claim that if 1974 NA Proceedings are published WHOLE of Pakistan will accept Qadiani Beliefs. Now, on insistence and law suit filed by Canada Based Qadiani Lawyer Bashir A. Khan, 1974 NA Proceedings are OFFICIALLY published by Government of Pakistan and it is TIME FOR REALITY CHECK. Instead of being jubilant Qadiani Leadership is mum and tried every effort to hush report of its publication, including sending email warning to Qadianis NOT to open link to electronic/ pdf file of scanned 1974 National Assembly Proceedings.

    In their new stunt Qadiani Leadership is asking their followers to wait for “Authoritative”, “Authentic” 1974 NA Proceedings publication by their Qadiani Organization.

    Do you people wonder why?

    Before I provide you answer, I would like you to read another historical stunt by QK4 in year 2000.

    In year 2000, in early days of Internet Discussion forums, young Qadianis intoxicated by their Qadiani Khalifa/ Leadership teachings/ brainwashing got themselves involved with few of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement internet posters. Soon, young Qadianis started realizing weaknesses in their own and their Qadiani Khalifas beliefs, claims, and teachings. This new educational experiences for young Qadianis was a scary and threatening scenario for QK4. This would have revolted young Qadianis against their leadership and Qadiani Khalifa family. This would have directly negatively affected FINANCIAL INCOME of Qadiani Khalifa Family. Foreseeing this new danger QK4 ordered his followers, especially young Qadianis, and enforced his orders through Friday Sermons and other close monitoring through Qadiani families and internet posting: Do NOT engage in religious discussions with Lahori-Ahmadis. He further said to young Qadianis, “I am Khalifa-e-Waqat (i.e. Qadiani Khalifa on Throne), and it is my responsibility to get into discussions with Lahori-Ahmadis, and I will do it. You stop it”. OF COURSE THAT TIME NEVER CAME.

    Lahori-Ahmadis are having FIELD DAY. They are posting on blogs, they are discussing 1974 NA Proceedings in their gathering and speakers are making speeches/ sermons. They are challenging Qadianis to read what their QK3 testified inside NA, and on the contrary what he said outside.

    Qadianis, young or old, who have read 1974 NA Proceedings are realizing weaknesses in their Beliefs, Claims, Teachings and most importantly they are realizing how poorly prepared QK3 was and what a weak Qadiani Case he presented. Qadianis have started questioning their grounds.

    To avert doomsday fiasco for Qadiani Khalifa Family, Qadiani leadership is playing a new stunt, in the hope that with time Qadianis will forget about 1974 National Assembly Published Proceedings by Government of Pakistan.

    Please remember: On pages 1506 and 1507 of 1974 National Assembly Proceedings (pdf page 779), there is dialogue between head of Qadiani Organization delegation QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad and Speaker of National Assembly (Chairman Sahibzada Farooq Ali).
    Speaker made it clear to Qadiani delegation that NOTHING should be made public by them that includes ‘how proceedings continued’, ‘what was the purpose’, ‘what was the object’, and ‘publication of proceedings’.
    In reply QK3 made comments: “Yes, NO publication should be made”; “we are very careful NOT to make it public, and InshAllah we will do the same in future”.

    Now please for God sake go figure how and from where Qadiani Leadership is going to publish “Authoritative” and “Authentic” 1974 NA Proceedings???
    This should be moment of thought for Qadiani Followers of Qadiani Khalifa Family.

  136. January 13th, 2013 at 9:29 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Mirza Nasir Ahmad EVASIVE and CONTRADICTORY answers in National Assembly.

    Abdul Hafeez Pirzada was Minister of Law in Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s PPP government in 1974. He was also one of the founding members of PPP and close confidant of ZA Bhutto. In run up to1970 elections he became close to QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad. In aftermath of Rabwah railway station incident PPP government planned to hold National Assembly trial of Ahmadis (Qadianis and LAM).  According to Haqiqat Passand Party (HPP. English translation: ‘Party of Realists’) founding member Professor Chaudhry Ghulam Rasool sahib (of village ‘Chuck # 35’ near Sargodha) Abdul Hafeez Pirzada sent message to QK3, advising him: “By law you do NOT have to come to the upcoming National Assembly trial, and you jamaat (Qadiani organization) will be declared non-Muslim (i.e. Kafir) minority regardless”.

    Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, personally a secular person, wanted to return favor to QK3 for his help to PPP in winning 1970 general elections. He was sympathetic to QK3 and wanted to prevent QK3 from personal humiliation in National Assembly.

    While reading QK3 testimony I umpteen times realized QK3 was giving EVASIVE and CONTRADICTORY answers to Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar (AG) questions, but I kept my self from posting my opinion on blog, until I came across following comment by QK3 sympathizer, a person none other than Abdul Hafeez Pirzada himself. In a follow up comment to Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri [Member of National Assembly], in which he pointed out QK3 is repeating his answers. I am quoting Abdul Hafeez Pirzada comment in English language:

    1974 National Assembly proceedings page 552 (pdf file page 292):

    Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada: Sir [Speaker of National Assembly], it has disadvantages [i.e. repeating answers]; it has also got some advantages because, from the point of view of the prosecutor also, you have repeat question sometimes; and the more they repeat an answer, the more CONTRADICTIONS are established. So, now that we have displayed so much patience, for about a days and a half. I think, we should bear with this, because you would appreciate that the witness is trying to be EVASIVE and, therefore, the Attorney-General has had to ask a question time and again. So, let us bear with it for about a day or a day and a half. We are now coming to the close.

    End quote. Note: words within [] and in uppercase are mine.

    If we set aside the important moot point whether 1974 National Assembly had right to declare Kalima-Shahada reciters as non-Muslim minority, after reading QK3 testimony I have come to conclusion that Qadianis, judged only on the basis of their own performance, deserved to be declared non-Muslim minority in Pakistan. Unfortunately, Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement became innocent by stander victim in this controversy.

    Wikipedia link to Abdul Hafeez Pirzada:

  137. January 16th, 2013 at 4:57 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    After Publication of 1974 NA Proceedings, what is next for Pakistan?

    Given the facts that Pakistan has been getting deeper into political, social, civil, and military turmoil at least since 2004. In other words 30 years after 1974 Pakistan National Assembly Proceedings in which Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement members, and Mujaddid of 14th Islamic Century Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad were declared non-Muslim [Nauzubilah] on the highest level of the government. Although it was clear Pakistan’s future was getting bleaker by the day, but I had inner wish that Pakistan should stay intact at least until the time 1974 NA Proceedings are published by Government of Pakistan, as an official document, so that all those who hold 2nd Constitutional Amendment to 1973 Pakistan Constitution as justified, even against LAM and HMGA get to see what actually happened inside in NA.

    Now as those proceedings are published by the Government of Pakistan and available for any truth seeker to personally make conclusion whether judgment imposed on LAM was justified. And Pakistan’s condition is only getting worse in every sphere of life and institution of country and chances of its disintegration is moving from delusion to realm of reality, not that I wish, but I do not have wish and interest for Pakistan to stay intact. If that happens Pakistanis will remain in their homes and on their properties, but they will be called citizens of some country other than Pakistan. If it happens in 2013, and it is still start of the year, then Canadian Think Tank prediction that Pakistan will be no more in 2013 comes true. Anyways, I don’t know what future holds for Pakistan, and sad thing is that I have lost interest in Pakistan. And this is from someone whose first career was to defend skies of Pakistan.

  138. Rashid,
    If the Lahore Ahmadiyya movement is declared to be the only true momin muslims, all other muslim sects are declared to be muslim ( but unable to achieve the rank of momin – this is a lahore ahmadi belief) and Qadianis remain Kafir, would that bode well for the future of Pakistan?

  139. Dear Umar, you say: “If the Lahore Ahmadiyya movement is declared to be the only true momin muslims…”

    No one has the authority given by Islam to “declare” anyone to be “true momin Muslims”, and then for this declaration to be binding in law on others to accept (as the 1974 amendment is). That is known only to Allah. Any such declaration by anyone that Lahore Ahmadis are “true momin Muslims” will be invalid and we will be the first to reject it. Do you think we want the likes of Z.A. Bhutto to declare us as momins?

    The Lahori Ahmadi belief is that any human institution must regard all those who profess the Kalima to be Muslim.

    As to who can achieve the rank of momin, Khwaja Ghulam Farid of Chachran never entered into the bai`at of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, yet the Promised Messiah considered him a true momin. He called him as “a man of truth”, as “one who receives light from God”, as “one helped by the Holy Spirit” and he addresses him as “one matchless in truth and purity” in that famous poem (Ay farid-i-waqt dar sidq o sifa).

    O how foolish of me! I forgot that the Promised Messiah wrote the above before 1901. But wait, he wrote as follows in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy:

    “To sum up, God had granted Khwaja Ghulam Farid a spiritual light by which he could distinguish between a truthful one and a liar at one glance. May God envelope him in mercy, and grant him a place near Him — Ameen.” (Haqiqat al-Wahy, p. 209)

    So who are we Lahoris to say that no other Muslim except us can reach the rank of momin? 

  140. Dear Umar, in about five hours’ time I will be saying janaza prayers for my mother, as prescribed by Islam. I can, and do, say the same janaza prayers for any departed kalima-reciter (which can be behind our own Imam or I could lead it myself), unless it came to my knowledge that the deceased openly reviled and abused the Promised Messiah.

    When Dr Israr Ahmad died a couple of years ago, it was after he had admitted on television that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had done service to Islam against its opponents. Can you realise the courage that took? So we prayed for his soul.

    And what are these prayers for the deceased? They are that Allah may forgive them and join them with true momins in the hereafter.

  141. January 18th, 2013 at 4:28 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Mirza Nasir Ahmad Vindicates Maulana Muhammad Ali without Acknowledging.

    “Mohammad phir uttar aaye hain hum main
    Aagay say hain barah kar apni shaan main”

    Qazi Akmal, Qadiani Jamaat poet, wrote these verses about HMGA: “Muhammad has appeared among us again, He is in greater glory than before.”

    When Maulana Muhammad Ali objected to these verses, and wrote ‘Ander Baith Kay Yahee Sabaq Diya Jata Hay’ (Translation: This is what they are taught inside), a reply was published in AlFazal (‘Kya Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib Sarasar Ghalt Aur Baybuniyad Ilzam Wapas Lain Gay?’ Translation: Will Maulvi Muhammad Ali sahib will take back his absolute false allegation?) which said that this poem was originally recited in presence of HMGA in 1906 and that HMGA was very happy to hear it and praised with words ‘Jazak-Allah’. Further Alfazal wrote that this poem written in calligraphic handwriting was presented to HMGA and he took it with him to his home to show it to his family. In AlFazal article a case was built that (elders of LAM including) Maulana Muhammad Ali, Khawaj Kamal ud Din, Shaikh Rehmatullah, Mirza Yaqub Baig, Syed Muhammad Hussain…..held the same opinion, and it was translated from Persian (original language of poem) into Urdu. And that Maulana Muhammad Ali was present in gathering when poem was recited to HMGA.

    1974 NA proceedings page 785 (pdf page 410):

    When poem praising HMGA to the rank higher than Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS was pointed out to QK3 by AG to make a point that Qadianis hold HMGA higher in rank to Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS, following dialogue took place:

    QK3: I say, had this poem read in presence of founder of movement (HMGA) he would have kicked poet out of his Jamaat.

    AG: Poem was also published in ‘Badr’ Newspaper. Was poet kicked out of Jamaat?

    QK3: It must NOT have come to his [HMGA] knowledge. [You’re] referring to many  years later Alfazal [that reported this information].

    AG: According to [Alfazal] this poem was published in ‘Badr’ October 25, 1906 issue and Mirza sahib [HMGA] passed away two years later.

    QK3: We have not been through all the issues of ‘Badr’ and [AlFazal]….we need time to find TARDEED (Translation: Correction).

    AG: In that case for your [QK3] attention…..[then AG] asked Maulana Muhammad Zafar Ahmed Ansari (Religious-Politician member of Pakistan National Assembly)  to read Alfazal lengthy article ‘Kya Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib Sarasar Ghalt Aur Baybuniyad Ilzam Wapas Lain Gay?’ published in August 13, 1944 issue.
    Ansari: Read the whole article and the entire poem (Ref: NA proceedings page 789).

    1974 NA Proceedings page 882 (pdf file page 461):
    QK3 acknowledges such poem and related information was written in Afazal, but says correction was made.

    1974 NA Proceedings page 885 (pdf file page 462):
    QK3: In our history it has NOT been recorded that founder of movement [HMGA] had read this [the said] poem.

    1974 NA Proceedings page 889 (pdf file page 464):
    QK3: AlFazal LIED. Qazi Akmal LIED (referring to the poem and information AlFazal had touted). No Ahmadi mentioned it in any writing, lecture, and book to any such incident (in which poem was recited and HMGA praised it).

    1974 NA Proceedings page 939 (pdf file page 489):
    AG: Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib of Lahori-Party objected on the poem. Did someone in your [Qadiani] Jamaat condemn it? In 1944 you were supporting [AlFazal and Qazi Akmal]!

    CONCLUSION: When PREPOSTEROUS poem by Qadiani Qazi Akmal came to knowledge of Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib he objected, as reported in Paigham-e-Sulah. AlFazal authors instead of accepting their mistakes, wrote a counter article, it was authored by Qadiani Qazi Akmal himself, in which Maulana Muhammad Ali was projected as someone who changed his beliefs and lied despite being present in gathering in which allegedly HMGA was sitting and praised it when it was first recited. But FINALLY QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad, while being squeezed in vise, under pressure spoke truth and accepted AlFazal newspaper and Qadiani poet-author Qazi Akmal were the real LIARS.

    Though QK3 did not show moral courage to unequivocally say that Hazart Maulana Muhammad Ali (rta) was truthful. QK3 denunciation of AlFazal and Qadiani poet-author Qazi Akmal was tantamount to accepting the fact that Qadiani teachings are inherently wrong.

  142. January 19th, 2013 at 4:07 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Attorney General Sought Help from Qadiani Khalifa 3 to Weaken LAM Defense.

    Background Information:

    Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement was also invited by Pakistan National Assembly to present their defense in the famous trial of Ahmadis in 1974. LAM presented an EXPLANATORY STATEMENT before their witness testified in NA. (Link to published statement). LAM written statement was submitted to NA and its copies were provided to NA members, while QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad was testifying on behalf of his Organization. Prosecutor i.e. Pakistan’s Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar, and perhaps other members of NA and Speaker Sahibzada Farooq Ali got chance to read LAM explanatory statement. Obviously they found that LAM stand and beliefs are opposite to Qadianis and absolutely rational and strong on issue of fundamental belief that Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS was THE LAST PROPHET OF ALLAH SWT, and NO NEW OR OLD PROPHET CAN COME AFTER HIM. This stand was so strong and powerful that it was damaging prosecution case of declaring LAM or Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib outside of pale of Islam. And in presence of such a defense any judgment contrary to it would be remembered as most biassed, unfair judgment in history of Islam and perhaps world. And it would only bring shame to Prosecutor, National Assembly and Government of Pakistan at the time. History will remember it as travesty of justice and a sham trial. And I am confident this was the real reason for keeping proceedings of the trial secret, until recently when its publication was forced under High Court orders.

    So working on proverb ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’, AG sought QK3 help in countering proofs, arguments, and reasons provided by LAM. As prosecution, judges and executioners wanted to establish as truth the GREATEST LIE OF ALL TIMES that HMGA made claim of Ummati-Nabi.

    1974 NA Proceedings page 944 (pdf page 492):

    AG: Mirza sahib [QK3] we have received a statement from Party from Lahore [LAM]. There are some issues on which I want your clarification. They say, “Mirza sahib [HMGA] NEVER made claim of prophethood”. This is very important issue. You [QK3] claim he [HMGA] made claim of “ummati-nabi” and “he [HMGA] was NOT. He NEVER made such claim”. I will request Speaker to give you one copy [of LAM statement]. Then I will ask you questions.
    QK3: No one beside LAM has right to give clarification about their statement.
    AG: You please take a look. Then I will ask you questions.
    QK3: You give us LAM statement. We will prepare an answer for you.
    AG: We need to clarify certain points.
    QK3: What benefit this committee [National Assembly] will get by clarifying difference between Lahore Ahmadiyya Jamaat and ours?
    AG: There is resolution that brackets both of you [Qadiani Organization and LAM].
    QK3: It will be fair to me to explain in detail and that might be 200 pages and something.
    AG: Mirza sahib, I do NOT want to file a rejoinder to what they have said……
    QK3: No? What do you want then?
    AG: ….. I want certain points that they have raised that Mirza sahib [HMGA] never claimed to be a Nabi….
    Speaker NA: It is allowed. The copy [of LAM explanatory statement] may be given [to QK3].

    My comment: Above dialogue makes it clear that how much scared Prosecutor, and National Assembly were from LAM and their conscience was bothering them, in their pre decision to declare LAM and HMGA a non-Muslim [Nauzubilah]. They stooped so low that they sought help from the very people (Qadianis) with whom they had the original confrontation.

  143. I am in the process of reading the LAM testimony. One thing that is clear (and should to be to a neutral reader as well) is that the manner of questioning was obviously to make the LAM representative say things self-damaging to LAM’s case, even if they were contrary to LAM’s stated beliefs. And this was done to a nauseatingly persistent degree, completely throwing out of the window basic principles of justice and objectivity. One huge flaw in this whole “trial”, IMHO, was that there seems to have been no attempt to “frame the issue.” This would be a basic legal flaw if the aim was to objectively settle a contentious issue (perhaps a lawyer on this forum can give a better assessment). I think had the basic issues been framed in accordance with legal principles of justice and fair-play; the matter could have been settled within 30 minutes and in favour of LAM. It would have gone something like this:

    1 – XYZ is the “belief set” one must have to be a Muslim.
    2 – LAM has “ABC” belief set (could have been determined in 5 minutes with a few simple questions).
    3 – ABC is fundamentally consistent or inconsistent with XYZ.

    Problem of-course is that no “XYZ” has been defined by the Mullahs that keeps all other sects Muslims at the same time. And if an “XYZ” is defined as such, it will most definitely keep LAM Muslims as well. So instead of taking this fundamentally critical step and properly frame the issue, the AG took another route alotogether.

    The AG went to great lengths to make LAM “believe” that HMGA claimed prophet and said that all non-followers of HMGA are Kafirs; which of course was not the issue. The issue should have been what LAM believes and whether those beliefs are consistent with being a Muslim. Pure and simple. Even if LAM has erred in understanding HMGA, is that grounds of expulsion from Islam? Though I have not read through the entire document so far, it certainly appears to be the case that instead of trying to simply establish the beliefs of LAM and evaluating if they are consistent with Islam or not, the entire focus of AG is to prove that LAM erred in understanding HMGA. So if I mistakenly think that person A is pious of man of God (when in fact he is not), then that means that somehow my faith is not what I believe, but what person A believes, and I should be judged on the beliefs of person A and not my own beliefs!

  144. Usman, the legal flaws you mention in your first paragraph must, I think, be part of the reason for suppressing the proceedings, because Bhutto must have known as a law expert himself that the world would ridicule and condemn the whole procedure on legal grounds.

    You write: “The issue should have been what LAM believes and whether those beliefs are consistent with being a Muslim. Pure and simple.”

    This is what I, as translator/interpreter in the South Africa case, thought we would be doing. But Hafiz Sher Muhammad sahib said he wanted to prove that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib was a Muslim, and allegations to the contrary against him were false. The judgment, of course, could only say that the party to the case was entitled to all the rights and privileges of Muslims.

    After the first case was over, the Qadiani Jamaat produced a leaflet against us entitled “Moment of exultation or shame”, saying that we ought to be ashamed that we won by denying that Hazrat Mirza sahib claimed prophethood. Hafiz sahib wrote a reply to it, which I translated, saying to Mirza Tahir Ahmad, “I proved your grandfather to be a Muslim”!

    Regarding your last paragraph about believing in person A, whose beliefs may be judged to be wrong while yours are correct, our maulvis do have this concept that if they declare someone as a claimant to prophethood or a kafir (according to their judgment, of course) then anyone believing him to be a Muslim becomes a kafir. So, not only LAM, but any other Muslim who considers Hazrat Mirza sahib as a Muslim, is a kafir. Hence that declaration on the ID card and passport form which they force everyone to sign who calls himself a Muslim.

    This is also why they had to say in the 1974 amendment:

    “A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophethood of MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.”

    By the way, there is a contradiction here.

    When Muslims acknowledge “the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophethood of MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him)”, and when anyone considers him as “the last of the Prophets”, it is obviously in some sense of the word prophet. But the clause goes on to say: “or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever”.

  145. January 20th, 2013 at 4:32 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Boer War, Indian Mutiny of 1857 and Sultan of Turkey.

    1974 NA proceedings page 878 (pdf file page 459):

    QK3 read a quote from a book ‘Turkish Atrocities on Their Own’ by Shaikh Abdul Qadir, a prominent Muslim in India.

    Author says: During mutiny in 1857 in India, Muslim Sultan of Turkey gave permission to British Army to pass through Egypt [Suez Canal was not built by then, and shortest route from Europe was overland through Egypt], to reinforce British forces in India. In South Africa there was Boer War. Turks sided with British. Thousands of Turks fought under British flag. In mosques prayers were offered for success and victory of British forces.

    Hopefully opponents of HMGA before criticizing him for praising British rulers (who gave freedom to practice Islam to Muslims in India versus Sikh rulers earlier) will criticize Sultan of Turkey before criticizing HMGA.

  146. The support given to the British by the Ottoman (Turkish) empire in 1857 would have been due to the famous Crimean war, 1853-1856, having just finished, in which the British and the French were allied with the Turks against Russia.

  147. January 26th, 2013 at 6:01 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Do Qadianis Respect their QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad?
    In 1974 Pakistan National Assembly proceedings, while under oath, Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad testified that Al-Fazal Newspaper is NOT organ of Qadiani Organization, and he vehemently condemned the dirt cheap, and totally worthless, scribes, columnists, and editors for reporting “false”, “misleading” and “objectionable” statements of their Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. And he blamed the dirt cheap and absolutely worthless people, responsible for producing Al-Fazal, for the ill feeling and hatred among Muslims of Pakistan towards Qadiani organization and Qadiani teachings, Khalifas and followers.
    Now the same wretched people associated with Al-Fazal have no shame and no respect, in letter and spirit of their QK3 testimony. These shameless people very proudly provide Al-Fazal, Rabwah and London editions on the official website of Qadianis ‘’ and has written instruction at the bottom of Al-Fazal archives: Nothing from this website can be reproduced without the written permission of Qadiani Organization.
    Now question is who is right, QK3 or his Qadiani followers?
    Link to Al-Fazal Rabwah and London edition archives:


  148. January 27th, 2013 at 10:13 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Prophetic Words of Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri

    Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri is Pakistani Politician. His one fame to prominence is that on his accusation Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto went to gallows for murder of his (ARK Qasuri) father.

    On last day of QK3 testimony between the session breaks he addressed the Chairman [Speaker] Farooq Ali Khan and thus it became part of record of 1974 NA Proceedings on Ahmadiyya trial. He complained to the Chairman that on his way to National Assembly an assassination attempt was made on him. It is in reported in English. What struck me is that what he said then was very prophetic. If we replace name of ARK Qasuri and put name of any follower of HMGA, it perfectly fits well. His address is more than two pages long. I reproduce portion of a paragraph:

    1974 NA Proceedings page 1416 (pdf file page 734):

    “Sir, if you will not protect us, because you are the symbol of democracy, you are the symbol of rule of law in this country, if you will not defend us, Sir who will depend [defend] us? And if we have to depend [defend] ourselves in this country, if everybody starts holding guns, then Sir, this country will not find anything, there will be no society and there will be no law. There will be absolutely chaos, there will be bloodshed. And Sir, we have already passed through a blood-bath [probably referring to blood-bath in Bangladesh before its breakaway from Pakistan]. We know what is a blood-bath and we don’t want blood-bath in this country.

    Sir, if this type of incident takes place and if we feel that we are not protected by the rule of law, by the Administration, then we will have to protect ourselves. And when everybody started protecting himself, Sir, you know, it will result in total chaos, it will result in disintegration of the country. And, Sir, for God’s sake, let us save this country. This country is lying [laying] shambles. We are already finished totally.”

    My comment: I don’t know what to make of it. Was it simply a coincidence or a preview of what the future held for Pakistan, and how National Assembly decision will impact tomorrow’s Pakistan? Was Allah SWT giving a message to elected representatives of Pakistan?

  149. January 27th, 2013 at 10:50 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Acknowledgement of Attorney-General’s lack of knowledge in Arabic text.

    Opponents of HMGA and LAM, who think Attorney-General Yahya Bakhtiar was able to “SATIA-NAS” (totally destroy) LAM witness marhoom Abdul Manan Omar sahib testimony need to know what Chairman of NA Special committee i.e. Speaker Sahibzada Farooq Ali Khan said regarding AG knowledge in Arabic text. This comment was made during QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad testimony.

    1974 NA Proceedings page 1426 (pdf file page 739):

    Mr. Chairman: My observation is based on the ground that the Committee has authorized the Attorney-General to put the question only and, as far as Tehreef-i-Quran is concerned, since we had ourselves acknowledged that the knowledge of the Attorney-General in Arabic text is not as good as in others, so, for the Arabic text, the help of Maulana Zafar Ahmad Ansari has been obtained.

  150. February 10th, 2013 at 8:34 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Members of Qadiani Delegation in 1974 NA on Qadiani Issue Proceedings

    Qadiani delegation in National Assembly had five members. Purpose of people other than QK3 was to assist him in providing references:

    1-QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad
    2-QK4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad (in his speeches he has acknowledged he was part of delegation)
    3-Abu-Al-Atta (his one sentence speech is reported in NA Proceedings)
    4-Dost Muhammad Shahid (the Qadiani historian, on Qadiani TV MTA and on Youtube video has acknowledged being part of delegation)
    5-I do not know who was this person.

    I have seen QK4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad in youtube videos asking his Qadiani scholars to provide him references. That brings question in my mind what was purpose of QK4 to be part of delegation if he was always in need of Qadiani scholars. The only answer that comes to my mind is that he was already working on becoming next Qadiani Khalifa. And in order to establish his credentials over his brothers especially over Mirza Rafi Ahmad, he became part of delegation. As this brought him one step more close to the coveted position.  Qadianis hold belief that God makes their Khalifa. So, Mirza Tahir Ahmad was HELPING GOD TO MAKE HIM NEXT QADIANIS KHALIFA!

  151. February 19th, 2013 at 7:57 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Fire has reached home!

    Shia Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1974 started the fire by declaring reciters of Kalima-Shahada as Kafir, and paving the way for those who want to kill the newly declared Kafirs. Now fire has reached home. Bhutto’s fellow Shia Kalima-Shahada reciters are declared Kafir and killed. I am referring to recent Killing of Shia in Quetta, Pakistan. Now Pakistanis are wondering who is going to rescue them from hands of Mullah Mafia in the Killing Field aka Pakistan.

    A question was put to Pakistan’s top political analyst Najam Sethi in his Geo TV Program ‘Aapas Ki Baat’ Feb 18, 2013 program.  Please watch at 30minutes:آپریشن-کیوں-نہیں-؟

  152. March 4th, 2013 at 1:11 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    PM Z. A. Bhutto Received Payment in the Same Coins.

    History repeats itself. Justice is first served in this life. What goes around, comes around.

    In my life I have not seen anyone else on which these proverbs apply as perfectly as they did on Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) of Pakistan.

    1-ZAB declared Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM) members Kafir (nauzubilah) in 1974 through 2nd constitutional amendment. ZAB was himself declared Kafir by Lahore High Court in its decision that gave death penalty to him. He was extremely hurt by this decision. He in his testimony in Pakistan Supreme Court stated his preference for being put to death by hanging then to be declared Kafir. He said that even a person like Hazrat Abu Sufian a bitter enemy of Islam when recited Kalima-Shahada was accepted as Muslim by Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS. (Reference: ‘Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto from Birth to Martyrdom’ by Sajjad Ali Bukhari). I am glad to know ZAB realized before being put to death by executioner Christian Tara Massih that recitation of Kalima-Shahada is enough for someone to be declared a Muslim.

    2-ZAB allowed opponents of HMGA and LAM to publically say what they wanted, but testimony of LAM witness Abdul Manan Omar sahib was held In-Camera and behind Closed Doors. In Lahore High Court prosecution witnesses in ZAB trial testified in open court. Whereas ZAB testimony was In-Camera. ZAB was very angry with this unfairness and travesty of justice. (Reference: ‘If I Am Assassinated’ by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto).

    3-ZAB was very proud of his Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar performance in 1974 NA Proceedings that declared LAM members Kafir (nauzubilah). ZAB was highly critical of the same Yahya Bakhtiar for handling his case. He accused him of incompetency and destroying his defense. (Reference: ‘Last 323 days of Bhutto’ by Col. Rafi-ud-Din).
    I don’t know whether to call it co-incidents or there was divine hand behind his judicial murder:

    I-ZAB in his book ‘If I Am Assassinated’ wrote names of LAM member and his relative through marriage whom he blamed for building a murder case on him.

    II-ZAB’s final death sentence was signed by General Zia Ul Haq. He was son of LAM member.

    III-ZAB was put to death by, a Christian hangman by religion, Tara Massih.

    ZAB the most powerful man in Pakistani society at the time was put to death by people belonging to weaker segments of the society.

  153. March 4th, 2013 at 7:12 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    “ZAB the most powerful man in Pakistani society at the time …”

    I was in Pakistan for only a few weeks during Z.A. Bhutto’s rule, in 1975/76. I later reflected on his power and might over the people. Reading about Firaun in the Quran, one wonders how a civilisation containing as intelligent people as the Egyptians of that time could believe in a human being like Firaun as god and worship him: “And Pharaoh said: O chiefs, I know no god for you besides myself” (28:38).

    That was Bhutto’s position in Pakistan. People were in terror of him. The intelligent and the educated worshipped him or were forced to do so. It resolved my question about how it is possible that highly intelligent people could regard a mortal who is in front of them as god.

    Bhutto claimed that he had solved a “90-year” old problem, but I say to his supporters: this is too modest a claim; in fact he solved a 1400-year old problem. That problem was that Islam required every kalima reciter to be regarded as a Muslim. Bhutto solved that problem for you!

  154. April 6th, 2013 at 9:17 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Why Pakistanis Are Crying Foul Play?

    These days it is election season in Pakistan. Government officials appointed to scrutinize nomination papers of candidates are asking questions to verify whether they are Muslims or not. For these government officials it is NOT enough for a candidate to call himself/herself a Muslim or recite Kalima-Shahada to be declared and accepted as a Muslim. Many prominent politicians are getting disqualified for failing the oral exam in Islamic Studies. Now Pakistani politicians, political program anchors, and commentators are crying foul play. I see it as continuation of punishment of Pakistanis through the son of Lahori-Ahmadi i.e. General Zia ul Haq. Following is one such program on Dawn TV:

  155. I am interested in learning more about the proceedings in 1974 and under president's Zia ul Haq's regime. Can you indicate which links to pursue in order to gain a comprehensive knowledge in this matter?


  156. April 19th, 2013 at 6:42 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:


    Akbar Chaudhry, a former Qadiani (MTA personality) and now anti-HMGA, anti-LAM, anti-Qadiani, and Khatam-e-Nabuwat-Academy-UK spokesman, on his website has posted the 1974 National Assembly Proceedings on Qadiani Issue. Here is the link:

  157. assalamo alaikum 

    im an ahamdi muslim 

    i ve keen interest to discuss on this issue 

  158. March 11th, 2015 at 6:57 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Ahmadis and Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan

    Dr. Ali Usman Qasmi, professor at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) has authored, above named book.  I have not read his book, but from the interview, to The News, it appears he has relied extensively on 1953 Justice Munir Inquiry Commission Report and 1974 Pakistan National Assembly proceedings on Qadiani Issue published in 2012. If anyone has read this book, please give your feedback.

    Link to Dr. Ali Usman Qasmi interview:

  159. March 11th, 2015 at 10:25 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    I became aware of this book last summer. At that time it was available from Amazon UK for 60 UK pounds, hard back. I didn't buy it! Now I see that a paper-back edition is available for 25 UKP.

    I have found it in Google Books, where many pages from the book (by no means all) can be viewed.

  160. April 2nd, 2015 at 3:06 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    I received my copy of Dr. Ali Usman Qasmi book 'The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan', from In the very initial pages of introduction i get the feeling that author assumes that claims of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib as propagated by Mahmudis (those who believe QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as "Musleh Mahud") and alleged by opponents of HMGA and [opponents of] LAM are true. Given this misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of author, i wonder how he can be impartial in his opinion. Anyways, i have to finish reading this book before forming my opinion about authors knowledge and impartiality.

  161. There's another book out at the moment, though it seems to concentrate on the AMC rather than Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The author's claim that Mirza sahib was influenced by Notovitch leads me to believe that his book is not likely to add to my understanding of Ahmadiyyat. That and the $50 RRP has put me off for now.

    Despite its shortcomings, Yohanan Friedmann's work will keep its place as the most objective authority on this subject.

  162. Dr. Friedmann did not have access to the English translation of some of the more relevant books by Maulana Mohammad Ali. Especially Prophethood in Islam. He mentions this in one of his footnotes. A few years back one of our members contacted him to make him aware that the said book was available in English. Dr. Friedmann thanked him for this information but, if I recall correctly, indicated in his reply to the effect that he was not longer interested in further research on this subject.

  163. Salaam. Interesting info Tariq, thanks. I fully subscribe to LAM's view on Hazrat Mirza sahib and note that Friedmann makes some glaring mistakes – not just regarding Ahmadiyya thought but Islam in general. 

    I like Friedmann's account because he clearly shows that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is fairly and squarely in the Islamic tradition, hence the subtitle of his book "Aspects of Ahmadi Religious Thought and Its Medieval Background".

    Also the book is very readable. Peace!

  164. April 3rd, 2015 at 11:22 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    In the book that Regis has referred us to (From Sufism to Ahmadiyya by Adil Hussain Khan) the author writes on p. 48:

    "…he never openly claimed prophethood in the way that one might expect a prophet of God would do. Instead of making a forthright claim, Ghulam Ahmad would either qualify his claims with elaborate explanations or contextualize his prophecy with references to themes contrary to notions of prophethood in Islam, which only added to people’s confusion. Even in retrospect, making sense of the totality of these claims throughout Ghulam Ahmad’s career is a challenge due to numerous contradictions, deliberate ambiguity, and the general ambivalence with which Ghulam Ahmad evasively expressed his ideas." (bolding is mine)

    This is nothing but the propaganda of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's opponents. Also, if someone doesn't "openly" claim prophethood, he doesn't claim prophethood in Islam because it is an essential part of the mission of a prophet "openly" to claim prophethood and leave no one in any doubt about it!

    On page 51 he states:

    "The existence of a muhaddath afer the death of the Prophet Muhammad is not incompatible with Islamic orthodoxy, but Ghulam Ahmad’s expansion of the qualities of a muhaddath were colored with the perfections of prophethood in such a way that they inappropriately overlapped."

    Just compare what eminent Muslim scholars wrote, before and after the time of Hazrat Mirza sahib, about the rank of muhaddas.

    Before his time…

    Shah Wali-ullah of Delhi: “The rank of muhaddas is such that when a muhaddas arises, he does not have to follow conclusions derived by human reasoning, just as the sun eliminates the need for ordinary lamps. For he comes with revelation and the knowledge given to prophets.” (Tafhimat)

    Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Shaheed: “The reason why apostleship (risalat) is sometimes ascribed to those who are muhaddas is that the Quranic verse, ‘We sent before you no messenger and no prophet’, is reported in a reading from Ibn Abbas with the words ‘and no muhaddas’ added”. 

    “Some scholars of Hadith have said that in the report quoted from the Holy Prophet Muhammad about the number of prophets, the word 'prophets' (anbiya) refers not only to nabi but also includes those who are muhaddas.” (Abqaat).

    And after his time…

    Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: “The most exalted group consists of those exclusively select, purified souls who are chosen by the Grantor of Divine grace and favour for momentous tasks. Their light of knowledge and action is derived from the fountain of prophethood, and they follow in the path of prophethood. These special persons are referred to in the hadith of Bukhari by the term muhaddas.” (Tazkira)

    Maulana Mufti Kifayat-ullah (President of the Jami‘at al-‘Ulama, India, in the 1920s, known as Grand Mufti of India): “A muhaddas is he who receives the word of God by special revelation. Some scholars consider such a one to be a prophet of a low rank, and others consider him to be a saint of a high order.”

  165. April 5th, 2015 at 6:16 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Hear Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Pleading for Justice and Public Trial in Pakistan Supreme Court.

    Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto set the tradition of INJUSTICE and BEHIND CLOSED DOOR trial, in Pakistan, to hide travesty of justice, by conducting sham trial that resulted Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement members declared non-Muslim minority in Pakistan through 2nd Constitutional Amendment in 1974.

    Within few years he became victim of tradition started by him. Hear him pleading in Pakistan Supreme Court, in audio recording of his testimony. He is pleading for Justice and Public Trial. The fact is ZAB did receive some kind of justice and the judges themselves were not politicians, and trial was held in court setting with some access to newspaper media, in form of press release every evening.  He received much better treatment than what he meted out to Kalima-Shahada reciters in 1974.

    Hear ZAB at 9 minutes:

    What goes around comes around. Allah-O-Akbar.

  166. April 9th, 2015 at 4:29 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Hamza Yusuf Calls Pakistan’s Decision to Declare Ahmadis as Kafir a Political Issue

    In a recently published youtube video Hamza Yusuf calls Pakistan’s decision to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim minority a political problem. He also notes that Ismailis (followers of Prince Karim Agha Khan) do not even offer prayers like Muslims, but they are not declared non-Muslims because of their powerful political positions.

    Knowing what Hamza Yusuf in last few years said about Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement and how under pressure retracted, makes me wonder if his answer in company of prominent American writers on Islam at a university forum is mere political expediency. Anyways please watch it in following clip:

    Shaykh Hamza Yusuf condemns Pakistan's decision to declare Ahmadiyya non-Muslims

  167. April 18th, 2015 at 5:20 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Why Lt. Gen. Chishti did NOT shoot and Kill ZA Bhutto on July 5, 1977?

    Lieutenant  General Faiz Ali Chishti Corp Commander of X Corps, was stationed in Rawalpindi.  He was asked by General Zia ul Haq to arrest Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto on July 5, 1977 when Pakistan Army Generals did Coup D’etat. Lt. Gen Chishti was the person who arrested ZAB.

    In a recent interview ‘On the Front’ 16th April 2015, Lt. Gen Chishti divulged that he was under order to shoot and kill ZAB at time of arrest. Per Lt. Gen Chishti, “it was question of only two bullets that night”. He gives reason that he did not kill ZAB as he respected him and liked him. I think Allah SWT wanted something else for ZAB, and he was kept alive for that. Although ZAB had expressed his wish to be murdered on night of Coup D’etat than to go through murder trial. As history proves ZAB was humiliated, dragged in court trial, humiliated after death as photos of his private parts were taken, and most of all Kalima-Shahada reciters i.e. members of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement are given chance to hear ZAB asking for Justice and Open-to-public trial, in Pakistan Supreme Court, that he did not deliver when power was in his hands in 1974.

    Please watch following video at 36 minutes:

    On The Front – 16th April 2015

  168. April 18th, 2015 at 6:01 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    And he had to step into his 52nd year in January 1979 as per prophecy!

    ZA Bhutto was a legal specialist, and master of law and constitution. Allah brought about his end through the legal procedure to show Who is the real Master of the legal process.

    Also through his trial he came to admit that any kalima-reciter is a Muslim, when he himself was accused of being a Muslim in name only, and not at heart.

  169. April 18th, 2015 at 3:10 pm
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    This incident also exposes the ruthlessness of Gen Zia ul Haq who is held to be a very pious man by many of his supporters.

  170. Dr. Zahid Aziz, 

    What is the prophecy you are referring to? 

  171. April 20th, 2015 at 6:10 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    In his book Izalah Auham, Hazrat Mirza sahib has given the prophecy of the death of a person as revealed to him in the words: kalb-un yamutu `ala kalb, the meaning being "a dog, who will die on the dog", and he writes there that the meaning is that this person will die at the age indicated in the numerical value of the Arabic word kalb (dog). This, he writes, is 52, and says that his age will not exceed 52 years but that as soon as he steps into his 52nd year he will die. (See in Ruhani Khazai'in, v. 3, p. 190.)

    Now, the public did not know ZA Bhutto's age (born 5 January 1928). In January 1979, as he was in jail awaiting the death sentence, his supporters decided to celebrate his birthday worldwide, and the world came to know that he had stepped into his 52nd year. His end came on 4th April 1979.

    Bhutto had repeatedly claimed credit for solving the "90 year old problem" by declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims. But it wasn't exactly 90 years when Bhutto made the claim. It was 90 years almost exactly in the week that Bhutto was executed that the Ahmadiyya Jamaat was created when the first man (Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din) entered into the bai`at of Hazrat Mirza sahib.

    In fact, a cynic could say that Bhutto solved the "1400 year old problem" because for 1400 years it was the teaching of Islam that every Kalima-reciter is a Muslim and cannot be declared as non-Muslim. Bhutto solved that "problem"!

    After the above prophecy, Hazrat Mirza sahib compares his own mission to that of a ruler sent by a king to rule over a city, but its people reviled, abused and rejected him very severely, and tried to kill him. He eventually returned to the king "after bearing all the persecution that was destined for him". Then the king sent in his forces to arrest all those people and put them on trial. He ends: "Every person will be caught by the misfortune of what he did with his tongue, pen and hand. Let those listen who have ears to hear."

  172. April 22nd, 2015 at 3:49 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Hamid Nizami

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Qasmi.

    Page 89: In a meeting of newspaper editors, Hamid Nizami of Nawa'-I-Waqt brought the matter to the attention of I. H. Qureshi, the cabinet minister of central government. Nizami clearly pointed the finger at Mir Nur Ahmad as the chief architect of the whole propaganda machine. (Note 112).  Qureshi had already heard of similar rumors from other quarters and asked Nizami for proof. Accordingly, Nizami sent for the prime minister's perusal a file of provocative articles from newspapers supported by the government.

    Note 112 (page 237): […] It should be noted here that, as opposed to the strong right-wing, anti-Ahmadi approach adopted by Nawa-i-Waqt later and continuing to date, its founding editor was much more liberal in his political disposition back in 1950s. He was strongly opposed to the demands for declaring Ahmadis a minority or for their removal from key positions. With regard to the latter question, he said before the court of inquiry that "this should not be suggested even in the case of Hindu citizens" ("Index Part III: Statements of Witnesses Nos. 107 to 123," 1116). Intriguingly, IGP Anwar Ali in his deposition described Hamid Nizami as belonging to the Lahori group of Jama'at Ahmadiyya ("Index Part IV: Statements of Witnesses Nos. 124 to 131," 1726).

    Wikipedia entry:

  173. April 22nd, 2015 at 4:00 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Maududi, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mehmud, and Khwaja Nazir Ahmad

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 96: […] At a time when religious leaders were seeking his [Maududi] participation, Maududi sat down to pen a pamphlet on the "Qadiyani issue." It was written and published within a few days and in no time thousands of copies were sold.

    At the end of February or the beginning of March, (Note 12) Maududi even tried to negotiate with Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mehmud through the intermediary Khwaja Nazir Ahmad — the owner of the Civil and Military Gazette and a member of Lahori Group of Jama'at Ahmadiyya. Maududi tried to convince Mehmud to issue a statement that would help settle disputes on certain theological issues "hurting" the sentiments of the general Muslim population. The Proposed statement drafted by Maududi demanded an admission from Mehmud:

    (1) that a Muslim who did not accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet was a good Muslim and not a Kafir;

    (2) that a Muslim who did not regard Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as Nabi [Prophet] was a true Muslim and Ahmadis would not refuse to join his funeral prayers; and

    (3) that the Ahmadis would not refuse to give their daughters in marriage to other Muslims as they did at present. (Note 13)

    Mehmud, however, refused to append his signature to the document. But in a statement issued on 23 February, Mehmud did say that those who do not regard Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet were not outside the pale of Islam. He also added that he could not force his followers to allow their daughters to marry non-Ahmadi men.

    Note 12 (page 238): For some reason, Khwaja Nazir Ahmad insisted he had met Maududi at the beginning of March and not at the end of February. He also denied that he had gone to Mehmud as Maududi's emissary. In the first place he had to meet Maududi because some members of Jama'at-i-Islami were threatening to burn down the offices of his newspaper on account of its policy against the movement. He went to Maududi to seek his assurance for protection of his property. Later he visited Rabwah to meet Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mehmud, not to convey a message from Maududi but to conduct an interview for his newspaper ("Index Part II: Statements of Witnesses Nos. 43 to 106," 928).

    Abdul Mannan Omar sahib (youngest son of Maulana Noor-ud-Din, Khalifa-tul-Massih) interaction with Maududi:   Late Abdul Mannan Omar sahib narrated to me that once he was invited to a wedding of Maududi's daughter. Abdul Mannan sahib participated in ceremony as a guest on side of groom. When groom's party reached brides home, Abdul Mannan sahib was provided a seat immediately next to Maududi. Abdul Mannan sahib had Maududi’s book in his pocket 'Qadiyani Masla' (Qadiyani Issue). Abdul Mannan sahib took book out of his pocket and asked Maududi, "you have written about beliefs and claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, but none of the references you have provided are from his books". Maududi replied, "no it is not the case", and took book from Abdul Mannan sahib's hand and browsed it for few moments then returned book and got up from his chair and left, never to come back to talk to Abdul Mannan Omar sahib.

  174. April 22nd, 2015 at 4:12 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 97: […] The representatives of the Punjab government sought permission and open backing from the central government "to resort to shooting and firing" in order to control the situation. This was fully supported from Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan representing the NWFP, who said that "time had come when Peerism, Mullahism and ecclesiasticism should be crushed for all time to come."

    Comment: Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan was head of his faction of Pakistan Muslim League (PML—Qayyum Group). He was Chief Minister of NWF Province (now called KPK Province) from 1947 to 1953. He was political opponent of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (head of Pakistan People’s Party). Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in his political rallies used to use foul language to insult Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, in a homosexual/ bisexual  connotation, based on part of his name 'Khan' in start and end of his name. Whereas history is witness that all three 'Peerism, Mullahism and ecclesiasticism' were instrumental in bring downfall to ZAB and creating current situation in Pakistan. Not to forget it was ZAB whose sexual parts were photographed after his death by hanging. It was he who indeed was insulted. No doubt protector of ones honor is only Allah SWT.

    Wikipedia entry on KAQ Khan:

  175. April 22nd, 2015 at 4:22 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    HMGA “Letter”

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 113: Although violence and protests had been suppressed after the imposition of martial law, the political leaders and bureaucrats were apprehensive of its resumption once martial law was lifted. For this purpose, a channel of communication was opened up through the intermediary Khwaja Nazir Ahmad — this time between Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mehmud and the governor general Ghulam Muhammad. The latter wanted Mehmud to issue a statement allowing Ahmadis to offer the funeral prayers of non-Ahmadis or pray behind non-Ahmadi prayer leaders. It was thought that such a statement would protect the sentiments of the general Muslim population on a subtle question of theology. When this message was conveyed by Nazir Ahmad, Mehmud told him that they were looking for an original letter of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in which he himself had allowed his followers to offer prayers behind other Muslim prayer leaders. When this letter was found in the records of the Ahmadiyya headquarters, a statement was issued accordingly. (Note 116).

    Note 116 (page 242): Dost Muhammad Shahid, Tarikh-i-Ahmadiyyat, vol. 16 (Rabwah: Nazarat Isha'at, n.d.), 929-30.

    Comment: Above lines prove that when Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad felt political pressure he changed his fundamental beliefs. For almost 40 years (from 1914 to 1953) he held one set of beliefs, and when political pressure came he took a U-turn, and all of a sudden "found" Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib's letter! And when pressure relaxed he made another U-turn and went back to his previous beliefs, and also made sure his followers go back to previous beliefs. We saw this repeated by Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad, when under political pressure he changed his beliefs in 1974 Pakistan National Assembly trial of Qadianis, as reported in now public proceedings. Third time we saw it repeated when Qadianis in Indonesia changed their beliefs under political pressure few years ago. It was only because of internet and presence of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement members in Indonesia that this treachery of Qadianis was caught and publicized, that pushed Qadiani Khalifa 5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad to take clear stance and in process he sacrificed his people in Indonesia. This he did to protect his following among Pakistani Mahmudis (those qadianis who hold belief QK2 was Musleh Mahud) inside and outside Pakistan. This Mahmudi tactic is an age old Christian tactic. When pope wants to make changes in church teaching he finds a “lost scroll”.

  176. April 22nd, 2015 at 6:36 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    This existence of this letter was mentioned by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in his book Anwar-i Khilafat, published in 1916, in which he wrote:

    “Again, there is a question as to the funeral prayers of a non-Ahmadi. Here we are confronted with the difficulty that the Promised Messiah gave permission in certain cases to offer prayers. There is no doubt that there are some references which lead to this conclusion and there is also a letter to this effect on which I shall ponder, but the practice of the Promised Messiah is against this.” (p. 91, original edition)

    This book is on the Qadiani Jamaat website at this link. This reference is on page 148 of printed book, pdf file page 73, at the bottom of the page.

    Maulana Muhammad Ali quoted the above passage in his English book Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement, published in 1918, and asked:

    "But the question is, did M. Mahmud ever ponder on these fatwas and on that letter and did he announce the result to which deep thought on that point had led? Nearly two years have passed away since he uttered these words and he has been repeatedly asked to declare the result of his pondering but there is no reply." (p. 88)

    In subsequent years Maulana Muhammad Ali continued to press Mirza Mahmud Ahmad on this point. In a short Urdu booklet, entitled Each and Every Qadiani invited to become judge, published in December 1940, he wrote:

    "Fourth Fatwa: The letter written by the Promised Messiah which is either in the possession of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad or he has destroyed it, but whose existence he first admitted at the annual gathering in December 1915, and now in Al-Fazl of 23rd March 1940 in the following words: 'A man presented to me a letter written by the Promised Messiah about funeral prayers of a non-Ahmadi. After seeing it, I said: I have no answer to this'." (p. 5)

    I should add that it is plainly absurd that, in such a matter, someone should treat just one unpublished letter as the basis on which to overturn his previous opinion. The conclusion you reach from his known and published writings cannot be reversed by something in a little known letter.

  177. April 22nd, 2015 at 8:59 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Is it mentioned anywhere that Khwaja Nazir Ahmad was son of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din? In 1911 Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din tried to save Mirza Mahmud Ahmad from the foolishness of his actions when the latter first published an article declaring other Muslims as kafir. It seems that in the same way Khwaja sahib's son tried to save Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in 1953.

  178. April 25th, 2015 at 4:14 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    @Dr. Zahid Aziz, Nowhere mentioned Khwaja Nazir Ahmad was son of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din.

  179. April 27th, 2015 at 5:29 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Justices Munir and Kiyani opinion on QK2 Somersault.

    Page 134: On the contentious issue of Ahmadis declaring non-Ahmadis Kafirs, the Munir-Kiyani report accepted the explanation offered by Jama’at Ahmadiyyah. On the one hand, the report admitted that the previous pronouncements of Jama’at Ahmadiyyah in this regard could not be interpreted in any other way. On the other Hand, the Munir-Kiyani report accepted the revised notion put forward by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mehmud saying that those who do not accept the claims of a mamoor-min-Allah (appointed by God) after the Prophet are not deniers of Allah and, hence, still part of the Muslim community. According to the report: “This is in no way inconsistent with the previous announcements that the other Musalmans are Kafirs. In fact, these words indirectly reaffirm the previous conviction that such persons are Musalmans only in the sense that they belong to the prophet’s ummat and as such are entitled to be treated as members of Muslim society (muashira). This is very different from saying that they are Musalmans and not kafirs”. (Note 50).

    Note 23&50 (page 244): Punjab Disturbances of 1953: Report of the Court of Inquiry Constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954 to Enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953 (Lahore: Government Printing Press, 1954), 199.

    Comment: In my discussions with Mehmudis (those Qadianis who hold belief that QK2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad was Musleh Mahud) give impression that Justices Munir and Kiyani accepted their Mehmudi Jama’at interpretation on issue of declaring non-Ahmadis Kafirs. Because of their inherent dishonesty Mehmudis do not tell that though Justices Munir and Kiyani accepted QK2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad explanation, but they did NOT believe his explanation.

  180. April 27th, 2015 at 6:07 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    LAM South Africa Case.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 138: The Ahmadiyyah “heresy” was contested in many other court cases, both inside and outside British India. In Maullim and Another v. Marrikan (1925) from the supreme court of the Straits Settlement (Singapore), the court said, “The overwhelming evidence in this case is that the fundamentals of Mohammedanism are believed in by Ahmediyas who are also therefore entitled to be called Mohammedans and not Kafirs and that the points on which they differ from the orthodox are on the traditions which have never been considered fundamental”. (Note 60).  An important case in recent times was contested in South Africa in 1983-85. There, the dispute was over the religious belonging of the Lahori jama’at of the Ahmadis. The government of Pakistan under General Zia-ul-Haq offered help to the Muslim Council of South Africa in contesting this case by sending a team of legal and religious experts from Pakistan. Later, this team of experts refused to contest the case on the plea that an ecclesiastical issue could not be discussed in a secular court of law, and that too by a Jewish judge. The court nevertheless, went ahead with the proceedings as it was not unprecedented in South Africa for the courts to deal with doctrinal disputes where necessary. (Note 61). In its final verdict, the court upheld the rights of Ahmadis of the Lahori jama’at as Muslims (i.e., their right to pray in a mosque and be buried in a Muslim cemetery) and instructed their opponents to desist from distribution of propaganda material labeling them as non-Muslims and apostates. (Note 62). Since it was the religious doctrines of the Lahori jama’at – which did not consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a prophet but only a reformer – that were under discussion, the court’s decision left question of beliefs of the Qadiyani jama’at unresolved.

    Notes 60, 61, and 62 (Page 245): Cited in Zahid Aziz, ed. And trans., The Ahmadiyya Case: Famous Religious Court Case in Cape Town between Lahore Ahmadiyya Muslims and Sunni Muslims Religious Bodies; Case History, Judgement and Evidence (Newark: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at Islam Lahore, 1987)31-2, 37.

    Comment: In another thread, on this blog, I have pointed out number of inaccuracies in Ali Usman Qasmi book.  There I have repeatedly made point that author Ali Qasmi is forming opinion of HMGA based on opinion of other authors. Where as in above quote he is telling readers that South Africa court agrees with LAM regarding claim of HMGA. So it is not correct to assume perhaps Ali Qasmi was not aware of HMGA true claim.

    South Africa court case published in Pakistani Law Journal:

  181. April 27th, 2015 at 10:05 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    For details of the Singapore case, see link to book of this case.

    On the South Africa case, he writes:

    "Later, this team of experts refused to contest the case on the plea that an ecclesiastical issue could not be discussed in a secular court of law, and that too by a Jewish judge."

    Their plea did not at all contain the objection that the judge was a Jew. That objection was only raised in the press statements of the Pakistani expert witnesses in Pakistani newspapers which appeared after the case. And unknown to them, the judge had been changed anyway to one who happened to be a Christian! See this link for details.

    A plea containing the objection that the judge is a Jew would have been laughed out of court, if not considered contempt of court. This was not Pakistan where a competent person can be disqualified because of his religious views (e.g., a Qadiani/Ahmadi cannot hold such and such office).

    The author writes:

    "Since it was the religious doctrines of the Lahori jama’at – which did not consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a prophet but only a reformer – that were under discussion, the court’s decision left question of beliefs of the Qadiyani jama’at unresolved."

    But according to our opponents' press statements, this case was between "Qadianis and Muslims". For example, they said: "the Jewish judge recorded the statement of a Qadiani named Sher Muhammad". (See this link.)

    All the above information about this case is in The Ahmadiyya Case book, a book which the author has apparently read. Shouldn't the author have commented that these expert witnesses from Pakistan stated falsely to the press that the case involved "Qadianis"?

  182. May 2nd, 2015 at 5:25 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Two narratives of Rabwah incident, and ZAB dividend.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Growing up in Pakistan I had heard one narrative from Qadiani circles that it was Nishtar Medical College students who used foul language for Ahmadi (Qadiani) girls, calling them Qadiani Hoors, waiting at train station in Rabwah. That infuriated Ahmadi (Qadiani) young men and fight broke out. Other narrative according to Qasmi:

    Page 175: On 29 May 1974, a group of students from Nishtar Medical College, Multan were on a trip to the northern areas of Pakistan. When the train halted near Rabwah — the headquarters Ahmadiyya organization in Punjab — Ahmadis boarded the train and started distributing their missionary literature. A section of the students on the platform were infuriated and raised slogans against the Ahmadis and their spiritual leader. 

    Page 176: Religious  extremists regarded Bhutto as sympathetic to the Ahmadis because the Ahmadis had supported the PPP during the elections of 1970. Before the elections, claim Ahmadi sources, Bhutto had met Mirza Tahir in expectation of receiving financial support for his campaign. Mirza Tahir was reportedly reluctant because Bhutto's list of candidates was comprised mainly of communists, who, warned Tahir, would take over Pakistan using Bhutto's popularity. Still, Ahmadis voted for the PPP in many areas primarily to keep out the religio-political parties. […] In the midst of rabid anti-Ahmadi sentiments from religious groups, Bhutto was eager to shed this baggage.

    Comment: Above excerpt gives credence to what Professor Chaudhry Gulam Rasool (founding member of Haqqiqat Passand Party) narrated to me few years ago. According to Chaudhry sahib, as Bhutto became Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mirza Tahir Ahmad (later Qadiani Khalifa 4) started acting as if he too has become Pakistan's PM and believing he is King Maker. Mirza Tahir started interfering in Punjab's politics in particular. He also started getting licenses, which he would sell, to start mills. Chief Minister of Punjab Haneef Ramay was quite disturbed with such meddling by Mirza Tahir in provincial administration. So, when ZA Bhutto got first chance to get rid of Qadiani baggage he grabbed it, and in one stroke he finished the nuisance of Mirza Tahir Ahmad and Qadianis. He made them irrelevant in Pakistani politics. According to 'Last 323 days of Bhutto' by Colonel Rafi-ud-Din, Bhutto said,"Qadianis were King Makers like Jews in United States".

  183. May 4th, 2015 at 9:51 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    I am copying, with some editing, the incident below from a comment by me in this blog in 2011 (see link):

    Dr Allah Bakhsh (my father's father) was General-Secretary of AAIIL in the early 1970s. He told us that just pre-1974 some men searching for the “Ahmadi” (i.e. Qadiani) centre were directed by people to the AAIIL offices in Ahmadiyya Buildings, Lahore (Brandreth Road). They were shown into his office. They told him: We want to become Ahmadis. He was surprised by this because it never happened that strangers would come and ask to join the Jamaat. So he asked them: Why do you want to become Ahmadis? They said: The present government (ZA Bhutto government) is only semi-Ahmadi (neem Ahmadi), but the next one will be fully Ahmadi, so we want to become Ahmadis in readiness!

    Obviously he asked them to leave.

    Dr Allah Bakhsh used to tell us that such was the perception of many people in Pakistan at the time because of the Qadiani Jamaat support with which the PPP had come to power.

  184. May 4th, 2015 at 2:56 pm
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    Full truth of the Rabwah Railway Station incident may be known only if and when the contents of the Justice Samadani commission were made public.

  185. May 12th, 2015 at 5:01 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad Agreed to Keep 1974 Proceedings Confidential.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 181: The members of the assembly took the decision to keep the proceedings of the special session confidential. (Note 48). Mirza Nasir Ahmad, too, agreed with this decision. (Note 49).

    Note 48 (page 251): The initial drafts of the proceedings — which had a narrow circulation among certain members entrusted with preparing the case against the Ahmadis — referred to the "Ahmadiyya issue" in the title. On objection, the title was to refer to it as the "Qadiani issue."  Proceedings of Special Committee of the Whole House Held in Camera to Consider the Qadiani Issue: Official Report (Friday 23 August 1974), 1245.

    Note 49 (page 251): National Assembly of Pakistan, Proceedings of Special Committee of the Whole House Held in Camera to Consider the Qadiani Issue: Official Report (Saturday 24 August 1974), 1506.

    Comment: Why QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad agreed to keep proceedings confidential??? In my opinion, he knew he will be asked questions, regarding his beliefs, which he will not be able to defend his Mehmudi beliefs, and he will need to change his beliefs, just the way his father QK2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad did in 1953 Justices Munir-Kiyani Inquiry Commission. This will create another problem among his own followers. So to keep his followers in dark, regarding his beliefs and answers in Pakistan National Assembly, while testifying under oath, he agreed to keeping proceedings confidential.  Moreover, we must not forget outside the National Assembly, he boasted to his followers that if 1974 proceedings become public HALF OF PAKISTAN will become Ahmadis (mehmudis). And QK4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad boasted that upon 1974 proceedings becoming public WHOLE OF PAKISTAN (probably he also included Lahori-Ahmadis among them) will become Ahmadis (mehmudis). I wonder how many Pakistani-Muslims have become Mehmudis since proceedings became public. I don't know of any Lahori-Ahmadi becoming Mehmudi!

    Readers may scroll up to the first post by writer in this thread (link) and see what QK3 wanted to hide from his Mehmudi followers. QK3 was adopting Lahori-Ahmadi beliefs, just like his father QK2 adopted Lahori-Ahmadi beliefs in 1953 Justices Munir-Kiyani Inquiry Commission. I can only hope some Mehmudis will start thinking reason behind QK3 agreeing to keep 1974 National Assembly Proceedings on Qadiani Issue.

  186. May 13th, 2015 at 6:23 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    LAM Viewpoint in Writing.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 185: On the recommendations of the steering committee, Jama’at Ahmadiyyah and the Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam Lahore were asked to present their viewpoint in writings. This was done by two parties in the form of detailed booklets. …

    Page 186: The Lahori jama’at was similarly given an opportunity to prepare a written response and present it before the assembly. The case of the Lahori jama’at was different because they did not claim to believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet. As pointed out in earlier chapters, the likes of Maulana Maududi and Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi had refrained from calling the Ahmadis kafirs because the belief of the Lahori jama’at on the concept of khatam-i-nabuwwat was starkly different from Jama’at Ahmadiyyah. In their written submission, they strongly refuted the claim that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was or claimed to be a prophet, or that the Lahori jama’at believed him to be one. On the tricky question of the status of those who deny the finality of prophethood in any sense of the term, the Lahori jama’at response was rather evasive. They could have sided with the ulema members in condemnation of the Ahmadis as Kafirs. Instead they reiterated their emphasis on accepting all those as Muslims who recited kalima. (Note 4). The Lahori jama’at – other than the official statement – also printed other pamphlets for the consideration of the general public and members of parliament. In one such pamphlet, titles Ain-i-Pakistan aur Musalman Firqa Ahmadiyya (The constitution of Pakistan and the Muslim sect of Ahmadiyya), the Lahori jama’at appealed to Jinnah’s vision of religious freedom. Religiously, they found support from the tradition of the Prophet against false attribution of kufr and an all-inclusive concept of Muslim community based on the affirmation of kalima. (Note 5). The pamphlet also tried to highlight the political ramifications of declaring Ahmadis non-Muslims. The Ahmadis, it claimed, would gain as a minority because seats would be reserved for them in the assemblies. Also, such an action would create an enemy out of the Ahmadis, which – if it was to be believed that the Ahmadis were occupying key posts in the government – would be detrimental to the national interests of Pakistan. (Note 6). On the issue of khatam-i-nabuwwat, the Lahori jama’at again whole heartedly denied the attribution of prophethood to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. They termed any claimant to prophethood after Prophet Muhammad as kafir, but were evasive about the followers of a “false prophet.” For them the issue of Ghulam Ahmad’s prophethood was more a result of the excessive reverence of a section of his followers (ghali mutabiyyin), and were it not for the fact that their opponents continued to wrongly hold up their claims as being representative of Ghulam Ahmad’s own writings, these fanatics would fade away time.  The Lahori jama’at was clear about its stance of Ghulam Ahmad as a mujaddid – a person who revives the faith in every millennia. In support of their claim, they referred to his tombstone in Qadiyan, which describes him as the mujaddid sad chahr daham (reviver of the faith in the fourteenth century of the Islamic calendar. (Note 7).

    In another pamphlet circulated just before the issue was taken up by the members of the National Assembly, the Lahori jama’at focused more closely on the question of khatam-i-nabuwwat. In that pamphlet they claimed to be the only sect who believed in the absolute finality of prophethood. The ulema and the followers of the Rabwah group, they claimed, had conditional beliefs in this regard. On this basis, the Lahori jama’at inferred – in a rather unusually aggressive tone – that if anyone was to be declared non-Muslim on the basis of rejecting the finality of Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood, it should be these two groups. (Note 8).

    Note 4 (page 251): National Assembly Pakistan ki Special Committee kay Rubaru Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishat-i-Islam ka Wazahati Beyan (Lahore: Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam, 1974), 1-2.

    Note 5 (page 251): Ain-i-Pakistan aur Musalman Firqa Ahmadiyyah (Lahore: Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam, 1974), 6.

    Note 6 (page 251): Ibid., 7-8.

    Note 7 (page 252): Ibid., 34-9.

    Note 8 (page 252): Mohtram Member Sahiban Qaumi Assembly ki Khidmat mai Khuda aur uss kay Rasul sal’am kay Naampar Appeal (Lahore: Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam, 1974), 7.


    Author wrote, “On the tricky question of the status of those who deny the finality of prophethood in any sense of the term, the Lahori jama’at response was rather evasive”. [Emphasis is mine].

    Here author, without giving justification for his opinion, uses word evasive for Lahori jama’at representative who insisted on accepting all those as Muslims who recite Kalima-Shahada. In other words he too wanted Lahori-Ahmadis to play God like “ulema” members of National Assembly. On the other hand author quotes Lahori-Ahmadis pamphlets printed for members of parliament. As he refers to them, so it is safe to assume he read them. Here he fails to give his opinion that holding beliefs, as expressed in pamphlets, they still deserved to be declared Kafirs!!! This only tells he is intellectually convinced declaring Lahori-Ahmadis Kafir was wrong, but lacks courage to write his opinion.

  187. May 19th, 2015 at 1:03 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Reply of Religious-Politicians to LAM Written Viewpoint.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 137: The ulema from within and outside the parliament, too, hurriedly put together a written statement. In this endeavor, headed by Yousaf Banori, several other scholars contributed as well. The religious and theological component was edited and compiled by Mufti Taqi Usmani while Maulana Sami-ul-Haq supervised the sections on the political and legal aspects. It was read out in the assembly by Mufti Mehmud. (Note 9).

    In Millat-i-Islamiyya ka Mo'aqqaf (The viewpoint of the Muslim community), …

    What was unusual in this brief monograph was the more focused attempt to explain the kufr of the Lahori jama'at. It argued that a person who claims to be a prophet inevitably proves himself to be the untrue and false. It amounts to kufr on the part of any individual to accept such a claimant as truthful and binding in matters of religious authority. Contrary to the claims made by the Lahori jama'at itself that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad never claimed to be a prophet, the ulema insisted on their stance. The only difference between Lahories and Qadiyanis, according to them, was that the Lahori jama'at used the word mujaddid for Ghulam Ahmad and fasiq (person who departs from the right path) — instead of kafir — for those who do not believe in his claims. (Note 10). This use of different terms was only a ploy on their part, insisted the ulema, to deceive the ordinary Muslim. Citing Maulana Muhammad Ali — the leading figure in the history of the Lahori jama'at — the ulema inferred the concept of zilli (reflective or shadowy) prophethood from his writings. In one of his writings, Muhammad Ali had written about Ghulam Ahmad's firm belief that there cannot be any prophethood after Muhammad except that which is acquired through absolute obedience to him. This form of prophethood could be described as mubasharrat or muhadissiyyat or kasrat-i-makalma (frequent dialogue) with the divine, but in essence it is all the same insofar as it is only a reflection of the prophethood of Muhammad. (Note 11).

    Note 9 (page 252): Mufti Mehmud, Millat-i-Islamiyya ka Mo'aqqaf, in Ehtasab-i-Qadiyaniyyat, vol. 15 (Multan: 'Alami Majlis-i-Tahaffuz-i-Khatam-i-Nabuwwat, n.d.), 2.

    Note 10 (page 252): Ibid., 40.

    Note 11 (page 252): Ibid., 42.



    Mufti Taqi Usmani had a free hand in National Assembly Special Committee proceedings where he was free to say and write without accountability, cross examination, and need to back-up his statements with evidence. But when the same person got grilled in South African Court in 1980s LAM court case, he realized limits of his knowledge. Seeing his fate other Religious-Politicians like Jama’at-i-Islami Senator Professor Khurshid Ahmad. Prof. Khurshid Ahmad asked court to adjourn for couple of months so that he can “get” evidence. This was his ploy to get out of court and leave South Africa and never to return to appear again in court. Read of following link exposes the pseudo knowledge of Pakistani Religious-Politicians when they are on neutral turf.

    Dr. Zahid Aziz, please comment on citation of Maulana Muhammad Ali in above quote from book. Thanks.

  188. May 19th, 2015 at 9:30 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    This allegation that while we in LAM call Hazrat Mirza sahib as muhaddas but then make it effectively the same as 'prophet' has been answered by me above in this comment above. I was answering the same allegation from the book From Sufism to Ahmadiyya by Adil Hussain Khan. Eminent scholars, both before and after the time of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, considered that a muhaddas could be included among prophets from the point of view of receiving revelation, without being a prophet, and they argued this from Quran and Hadith. But his revelation is a personal experience, and is not an authority in Islam.

    In the context of the National Assembly proceedings, the relevant point is that we believe that one who does not believe in a muhaddas or mujaddid still remains a Muslim in the law and the society of Islam. As to such a person being a fasiq or unrighteous, an Ahmadi is also a fasiq if he does not say his prayers or violates any other injunction of Islam. The National Assembly was not deciding on who is a fasiq (although it would have been much more interesting if they had defined fasiq because it might have applied to nearly all its own members!)

    Regarding the mention of the South Africa case, Maulana Taqi Usmani was never in the witness stand in either of the cases. His name was listed in the first (1983-1985) case as an expert witness for the Ulama. But in that case our opponents withdrew from the case. In the second case the person who was grilled in the witness box was Prof. Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi, which was in late 1987. There is a website created in his honour:

  189. May 20th, 2015 at 3:21 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Thank you Dr. Zahid Aziz for correction. I stand corrected. It was NOT Mufti Taqi Usmani who was grilled in witness stand in South Africa court case. Rather, it was Prof. Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi. None the less, I still believe that if it was Mufti Taqi Usmani in South Arfican court, his fate would NOT have been different. The entire National Assembly trial was indeed a sham trial to find truth, and travesty of justice. Religious-politicians had impunity to say and to decide even on matters that come under sole jurisdiction of Allah SWT. Result of their act of playing "God" is obvious in form of massacre of Shia, Ismailis, and Beralvi Muslims in Pakistan.

    Note: There are still many excerpts from book, on which i would comment. I may not have access to internet for couple of weeks. I will continue on my return. Thanks.

  190. May 20th, 2015 at 6:02 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    I believe the Ulama made Prof. Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi the "fall guy". Persons such as Taqi Usmani or Prof. Khurshid Ahmad, being public figures, stood to lose their reputation and the popularity which they depend on, back home in Pakistan, if they made fools of themselves in the witness box. Their own political opponents in Pakistan would have capitalised on it. Ghazi was an academic, with no such thing to lose or consequences to face.

  191. June 6th, 2015 at 7:12 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Kalima-Shahada NOT enough to remain Muslim per Pakistani Religious-Politicians.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 188: An important question for the ulema to address was about the status of an individual or a group which recites kalima. This was addressed in a lengthy appendix attached to the brief monograph. The ulema had to tread carefully between inclusionary and exclusionary criteria for membership of the Muslim community. On the one hand they could not accept the criterion laid down by both the Ahmadi groups of mere affirmation of faith in form of kalima. At the same time they could not afford to extend the exclusionary limits so as to ensure unity among their ranks, which had been questioned by the Ahmadi groups through an exposition of various fatwas given against each other by numerous Sunni and Shiite groups in the past.

    Therefore, the ulema did not question the centrality of kalima in initiation into the Muslim faith, but they did object to limiting belief to the recitation of kalima alone. This initiation into the Muslim faith, they argued, did not give carte blanche to an individual to hold and express beliefs in stark contradiction to the teachings of Islam. They considered khatam-i-nabuwwat as one such belief whose denial amounted to denying the clear edicts of the Quran and the Hadith. Hence, to reduce faith simply to the recitation of kalima, argued the ulema, would be a conspiratorial attempt to efface the difference between belief and kufr. (Note 13).

    Foot note 9, 13 (Page 252): Mufti Mehmud, Millat-i-Islamiyya ka Mo'aqqaf, in Ehtasab-i-Qadiyaniyyat, vol. 15 (Multan: 'Alami Majlis-i-Tahaffuz-i-Khatam-i-Nabuwwat, n.d.), 80-81.


    Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad preached and taught his followers that it is not enough for someone to remain Muslim by reciting Kalima-Shahada, starting in 2nd decade of 20th century. Half a century later Shia politicians, likes of Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar made it a law on paper that it is not enough for someone to remain Muslim by reciting Kalima-Shahada. In 2nd decade of 21st century Deobandis started picking up Shia/Hazara/Ismailis systematically for massacre, as for them (Deobandi) they (Shia/Hazara/Ismailis) were not following correct form of Kalima-Shahada, in Pakistan. Wahabis in Pakistan started bombing Beralvis, as for them (Wahabis) they (Deobandis) were following practices in addition to Kalima-Shahada to remain Muslim.  Looking at signs of ISIS ideology taking its roots in Pakistan, we should not be surprised to see ISIS mindset people declaring and committing genocide in Pakistan of those who do not practice their (ISIS) form of belief.

    Allah SWT sends Zalim (Cruel) people on top of Zalim people!

  192. June 6th, 2015 at 7:55 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Abdul Haq Baluchistani

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 189: The direct rejoinder to Mirza Nasir Ahmad’s Mahzarnama and his cross-examination in the assembly was mainly written by Maulana Ghulam Ghaus Hazarwi, aided by two members of parliament, Abdul Hakim and Abdul Haq Baluchistani.


    In Pakistan’s private TV channel ‘Dunya’ (world) program ‘Talash’ (search) on subject of Pakistan’s 1973 Constitution was presented. Dr. Mubashir Hassan, cabinet minister in ZAB administration, tells story of one Maulana from Baluchistan, who was member of Pakistan National Assembly in 1973, refused to sign the proposed 1973 Constitution in order to pass it unanimously. He was demanding cash money, as bribe. This Religious-Politician got elected to Pakistan National Assembly by defeating Z.A. Bhutto’s PPP candidate. Matter was taken to ZAB. He asked his minister to bring that Maulana to him, as he would himself give him cash bribe. ZAB had bundles of cash in form of Pakistani Rupees notes/ bills. Addressing the Maulana, ZAB asked him you want cash? Here it is. And he threw money in air so it spreads and scatters on carpet/ floor. Some money was thrown at distance. So Maulana had to get on his knees to pick money from floor. The ZAB purpose was to humiliate the Religious-Politician from Baluchistan. Those who are familiar with Pakistani Politics and Politicians can figure the said Maulana was Abdul Haq Baluchistani.

    Watch program at 07:15

  193. June 11th, 2015 at 8:36 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Discussion in National Assembly on LAM Statement.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 189: The written statements of Mirza Nasir Ahmad, the Lahori jama’at and the ulema members of parliament were read out before formally commencing cross-examination of the leaders of the Lahori and Rabwah jama’at. As mentioned earlier, the proceedings of the Special Committee of the Whole House where these statements were read out remain confidential to this date. Hence, it is not possible to know what discussion followed the presentation of these statements.


    Author Mr. Qasmi is referring to LAM publication that was distributed to National Assembly members was:  National Assembly Pakistan ki Special Committee kay Rubaru Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishat-i-Islam ka Wazahati Beyan (Lahore: Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam, 1974).

    I wonder what weakness ulema had found in LAM statement that they needed to cross-examine LAM witness. What was discussed? I am not sure who read LAM statement? Was LAM delegation present in House when discussion took place? I hope one day this part of proceedings also becomes public.

    Link to LAM publication:

  194. June 15th, 2015 at 6:39 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Did Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar Know Meaning of Word ‘Etimam-e-Hujat’?

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 190: From the liberal constitutionalist credentials of Yahya Bakhtiyar followed the second set of problems. The AG did not have any formal theological training or even an understanding of the issues involved or their polemical history. In this regard he was entirely dependent on the support provided to him by the ulema sitting in the assembly. They were required to draw up detailed lists of the “objectionable” aspects of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s statements about himself, the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad, support of the British and the status of non-Ahmadi Muslims. They were also required to give references from the books and journals in which these statements were made. On many occasions the references given to him were either incorrect or cited out of context. The AG himself had to admit in the assembly – once the Ahmadi delegation had left the house after day’s proceedings – that some of the citations either “do not exist or […] convey a different impression from the small quotations which I was giving. I think it should be carefully studied before they ask me to put a question” (Note 27).

    Page 191: In the parliamentary proceedings of 1974, on the other hand, the AG accepted his own ignorance of the subject matter and depended entirely on the knowledge of the ulema.


    I want to bring in knowledge of readers two points that late Abdul Mannan Omar sahib (witness for LAM) told me.

    Abdul Mannan Omar sahib asked Attorney General (AG) that since here he is testifying for Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, so whatever quotes he (AG) provides it should be from books of HMGA. Hearing this AG turned back to his “ulema” and pointed out that all quotes he has been given are by son (QK2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad) of HMGA.  “Ulema” replied well this is what we have, work with it. AG tried more than once to push with his point using QK2 quote, but Abdul Mannan Omar sahib stopped him.

    As author Qasmi points out AG lack of training and knowledge in matters of religion. It is also questionable how much understanding and command of Urdu language he had. Per Abdul Mannan Omar sahib, at one time AG asked him direct question seeking his (Abdul Mannan Omar sahib) opinion. What do you think of a person who practices all tenets of Islam but does not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, not even a Mujjaddid, do you consider him a Muslim? Abdul Mannan Omar sahib asked AG, has ‘Etimam-e-Hujat’ made on him? PLEASE NOTE: At this point Abdul Mannan sahib said, “God knows if he (AG) knew meaning of word ‘Etimam-e-Hujat’. Anyways, AG replied yes, yes, ‘Etimam-e-Hujat’ has been made on him. At this moment Abdul Mannan Omar sahib replied, “I don’t consider such a person decent person (Shareef Insan)”. ‘Etimam-e-Hujat’ means someone who has been convinced with reason. 

  195. June 15th, 2015 at 8:57 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Please see my comment at this link headed: Major error of fact by Yahya Bakhtiar…

    Yahya Bakhtiar quoted Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as affirming that no prophet can come after the Holy Prophet, and as cursing any claimant to prophethood after him, and said that these statements were from the early period until 1889, before he allegedly claimed to be a prophet, and even before he took bai`at from any follower. They weren't of course from that early period, and could not have been!

    This shows he had no idea whatsoever of the context in which Hazrat Mirza sahib made these statements.

  196. June 26th, 2015 at 3:25 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar Approach in Questioning QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 192: The AG's approach was threefold. He tried to establish the supremacy of the parliament, which had, in the first place, given the fundamental rights of free exercise of religion that Nasir Ahmad alluded to. This provision could be amended by a two-thirds majority of the parliament. …Secondly, the AG invoked the provision of subjecting constitutional or fundamental rights to questions of order and security. Coupled with this reasoning was his interpretation of religious freedom as a right which was absolute when practiced individually and in private but subject to possible limitations in public. He said, "….if you believe, if you have faith; but the moment you give an expression to that faith, that belief, you are likely to hurt somebody, you are likely to affect somebody …”.


    Suppose right wing political parties in European countries such as Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium etc win majority seats in their parliaments, and decide to use Pakistan’s Muslim Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar line of reasoning to make case that Holy Quran (according to their understanding) promotes violence and intolerance, mosques and Muslims praying hurts their feeling… so Holy Quran is declared banned book, with criminal persecution if found in someone possession, in their countries; Muslims are not allowed to have mosques like buildings and Muslims are not allowed to say Aazan (call of prayer) … what Pakistanis, and especially those who say since majority Muslim members of parliament  declare Ahmadis as Kafir, will say about majority Christian members of parliament in these countries? Will such Pakistanis accept it as fair decision?

  197. July 3rd, 2015 at 5:46 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Mehmudi Beliefs and Writings that got QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad into Trouble.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 195: The main thrust of the resolution presented before the house was to consider the status of those who did not believe in the finality of the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad. But this question was not taken up in the first instance. (Note 45). […] The AG [Attorney General] was more concerned about certain other aspects of the Ahmadiyya belief structure which, if condensed into one line response by Nasir Ahmad, could be used rhetorically to leave an impression on the members of the house. One such issue was the question of the status of those Muslims who do not believe in the religious claims made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

    In the numerous writings cited by the AG, the term kafir had been used in Ahmadiyyah literature to refer to non-Ahmadis. As was the case with the proceedings of the Munir-Kiyani inquiry, here too, the head of the Ahmadiyyah community resorted to lexicographic nuances in translating the term kafir as "denier." In this sense, Nasir Ahmad insisted, the non-Ahmadis were not non-Muslims but only  munkir(deniers) of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. (Note 46)….

    Page 196: One kind of kufr, according to Nasir Ahmad, was punishable in the eyes of God only. The other type was this-worldly and political in nature. (Note 48). He developed it further during a later round of questioning the same day. He argued that one type of kufr puts an individual outside the millat or world community of Muslims, but the other does not. Denial of kalima was the first kind of kufr. It was the kufr of those who denied the religious status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, which was difficult for Nasir Ahmad to explain in theological terms without giving an opportunity to his opponents to exploit it. If belief in the khatam-i-nabuwwat of Prophet Muhammad, as interpreted by the Ahmadis, was to be accepted, then belief in the prophetic status of Ghulam Ahmad was required as part of belief in the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, Nasir Ahmad had  to admit before the persistent questioning of the AG that the denier of Ghulam Ahmad could only remain part of the Muslim community in the political sense and that such a person would be accountable to God for denial or omission. It was said that such a person was a Muslim in one sense and kafir in the other. (Note 49). The AG remarked that this amounted to categorizing these individuals as Muslim kafirs. (Note 50).

    The cross-examination of Nasir Ahmad on this question extended over several days of the proceedings. He continued with the semantics of various lexicographic meanings of the term kafir. On this basis he distinguished between "circle of Islam" and "pale of Islam" (though these may not be appropriate translations for the theological concepts he had in mind, as the distinction is negligible), whereby a person could remain within the fold of the Muslim community millat-i-Islamiyya while being outside the circle of Islam (daira-i-Islam) at the same time. Nasir Ahmad said that a denial of kalima would put a person outside the "pale of Islam," but denial of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad would retain an individual as part of the Muslim community albeit outside the "circle of Islam. " (Note 51). Hence, a Muslim could be a member of the Muslim community and be outside the "circle of Islam" at the same time. The AG pointed out that this somewhat paradoxically referred to an individual as a Muslim in some aspects and kafir in other. (Note 52). At another point, Mirza Nasir described such an individual as a sinful Muslim. (Note 53). On the basis of this categorization he agreed with the AG's suggestion that the assembly could declare the Ahmadis outside the circle of Islam but within the pale of Islam. (Note 54).

    The Definite Question.

    Page 197: Two days later, on 10 August, the AG brought this issue back to elicit a response to a "definite question": whether any non-Ahmadi could be a haqiqi musalman [Muslim in reality]. Nasir Ahmad response was that according to his faith no non-Ahmadi in the Muslim community could be of this standard. (Note 61). This turned out to be one of the two most damaging statements made by Nasir Ahmad in response otherwise carefully chosen to remain vague. This was immediately picked up the ulema members of the parliament as, at the conclusion of the session, Abdul Mustafa al-Azhari stood up to "congratulate" the speaker for not being a haqiqi musalman. […]As a result, almost every member of parliament to speak after the cross-examination justified the declaration of Ahmadis kafir – an inference drawn by the members from the material presented before them and Nasir Ahmad’s own statement cited above.

    The other most damaging statement made by Nasir Ahmad, unmindful of the possible ways in which it would be taken by a person not initiated into theological polemics involved, concerned the possibility of the arrival of a new prophet after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. …

    Page 198: It implied that there was a possibility of more prophets to follow with the approval of the seal of Prophet Muhammad in the form of an ummati nabi (a prophet from the community of Prophet Muhammad’s followers and absolutely submitted to his discipleship and authority). This question was aptly exploited by the AG, as it made it difficult for Nasir Ahmad on two counts. First, he had to admit the possibility of more prophets to follow. […] Secondly, Nasir Ahmad had to qualify the possibility of the coming of a prophet with basharat (divine prediction) given by Prophet Muhammad himself. […] In fact he used the words “the door for ummati nabuwwat is also open” (Note 65) – another one-liner that carried a lot of impact and even made its way into popular conceptions about the “heresy” of Ahmadis. In his concluding arguments, the AG inferred from Nasir Ahmad’s response an implied assertion in the finality of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the last prophet, since no one else had preceded him, nor was anyone to follow him, as no prediction had been made by Prophet Muhammad in his sayings. This means that if the term Khatamun Nabiyyin was to be understood as “last of the prophets,” then, for the members of the assembly, it actually implied that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was Khatamun Nabiyyin. While it could be said, based on the statement given by Nasir Ahmad, that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was probably the last and only ummati nabi (with the theoretical possibility of more to come remaining intact), the assertion on part of the AG that the Ahmadis actually believed in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as Khatamun Nabiyyin was simply meant to ascribe a belief to Ahmadis so as to justify action against them by provoking religious sentiments.

    Page 199: Decades later, Abdul Hafiz Pirzada – the law minister of that period – recalled this entire episode in a TV interview. He cited Nasir Ahmad as saying that the window (of prophethood) is open and anyone can come through it. (Note 66).

    Foot note 45 (page 253): This was also pointed out by a member of parliament, Hakim Sardar Muhammad, on the third day of proceedings. Proceedings of the Special Committee (Wednesday 7 August 1974), 504.

    Foot note 46 – 50 (page 253): Proceedings of the Special Committee (Monday 5 August 1974), 140, 149, 141-2, 173, 196.

    Foot note 51-52 (page 253): Proceedings of the Special Committee (Tuesday 6 August 1974), 215, 265.

    Foot note 53 (page 253): Proceedings of the Special Committee (Thursday 8 August 1974), 575.

    Foot note 54 (page 253): Proceedings of the Special Committee (Tuesday 6 August 1974), 319.

    Foot note 61 (page 253): Proceedings of the Special Committee (Saturday 10 August 1974), 828. It was a strategic blunder on the part of Nasir Ahmad to have used the term haqiqi musalman in this interaction. Even during the course of proceedings, Nasir Ahmad realized his mistake. If Yahya Bakhtiyar’s version is to be believed, Nasir Ahmad made frantic attempts to convince Bhutto that he should pressurize the AG into asking this question again so that he could respond to it in a different wording. According to Yahya Bakhtiyar, this particular conversation swung the opinion decisively against the Ahmadis. Even such socialist stalwarts among the PPP as Sheikh Rashid became convinced that the Ahmadis themselves were taking this issue in the wrong direction (Bakhtiyar, interview, 4).

    Foot note 65 (page 253): Proceedings of the Special Committee (Thursday 8 August 1974), 642.

    Foot note 66 (page 253): “Dunya TV-TONIGHT With Najam Sethi-03-01-2010-3,”, interview on Tonight with Najam Sethi, Dunya News, 3 January 2010.


    From above excerpts it becomes quite clear that QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad miserably failed in defending and explaining his Mehmudi beliefs in regard to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib (HMGA). Had QK3 presented and defended beliefs of Mamur-min-Allah (divine appointee of Allah) Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, he would have been spared humiliation in Pakistan National Assembly and his follower’s sufferings and persecutions in Pakistan.

    AG Yahya Bakhtiar summarizing QK3 explanations of Muslims and Kafirs used phrase ‘Muslim-Kafirs’. If we support AG for his use of this phrase, Mehmudis will vehemently oppose it, and deny that QK3 ever meant or used this phrase. Whereas Mehmudis find no problem with their concocted phrase ‘Ummati-Nabi’ and associating it with Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib. Even when they have repeatedly failed to show this term used by HMGA.

    QK3 and QK4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad are on record of claiming if 1974 Proceedings of the Special Committee become public, half of all of Pakistan would hold their version of Ahmadis i.e. Mehmudis. Whereas above excerpts gives totally different picture. Every member of National Assembly who spoke after QK3 cross-examination justified need of taking action against Ahmadis (Mehmudis).

  198. July 3rd, 2015 at 4:11 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    The question about haqiqi musalman was absurd and the answer was even more absurd. There is no definition of this concept that one can apply, and it is not a matter of someone being either haqiqi or not. It is also beyond human knowledge, even beyond the knowledge given to prophets in their times whether someone was a true follower or not.

    For sake of reply, he could have replied that Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din has said the following:

    "Once a man asked me about a certain person as to what I think of him. I said he is righteous, venerable (naik hai, buzurg hai). He said to me: But he is an opponent of Mirza sahib. I said: So what? Those who opposed the commissioning of Adam are known as angels (mala'ika), and I haven't gone so far as to call him an angel (malak)." (Haqa'iq-ul-Furqan, p. 125, under verse 2:31)

    He could also have replied: Let someone (like AG himself or Speaker of Assembly) at least claim to be a haqiqi musalman and I will consider his claim. How can I declare someone as haqiqi musalman who himself doesn't claim it?

  199. July 4th, 2015 at 2:58 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Main Thrust of the Resolution.

    Page 195: The main thrust of the resolution presented before the house was to consider the status of those who did not believe in the finality of the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad. But this question was not taken up in the first instance. (Note 45).

    Foot note 45 (page 253): This was also pointed out by a member of parliament, Hakim Sardar Muhammad, on the third day of proceedings. Proceedings of the Special Committee (Wednesday 7 August 1974), 504.

    Comment: If Pakistan National Assembly had decided on 'Status of those who did not believe in the finality of the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad', it would have declared Pakistani Muslims ( Sunni, Shia, Deobandi, Brelvi, Ismailis, Wahabi) and Mehmudis (those Qadianis who believe QK2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad was Musleh-Mahud) as Kafir. Only Lahori-Ahmadis would have remained as Muslims.

  200. July 4th, 2015 at 3:02 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Mehmudi Social Practices that landed QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad in Hot Water.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 200: Similarly, Nasir Ahmad was asked why Ahmadis did not allow their daughters to marry non-Ahmadis and did not offer funeral prayers to non-Ahmadis. […] A discussion on the social exclusionary practices of the Ahmadis was an important part of the proceedings because it helped establish their otherness — not just in their religious beliefs but also as a different political and social community.

    Comment: Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib had warned QK2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad decades before, that by having Mehmudi beliefs (beliefs held by QK2 and his followers) and practices you people cannot remain part of Muslim-Ummah. That prophetic warning of Maulana Muhammad Ali did fulfill in 1974.

  201. July 4th, 2015 at 3:07 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Itmam-i-hujjat or Itmam al-hujjah.

    In an earlier post, in my comment, I wrote word 'Etimam-e-Hujat’. The correct spelling is 'Itmam-i-hujjat' or 'Itmam al-hujjah'. I found this word and explanation in Ali Usman Qasmi book.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Foot note 55 (page 253): Itmam-i-hujjat or Itmam al-hujjah is a theological concept which stipulates that the religious truth has been conveyed to an individual in an absolute manner. This truth may be conveyed during the time of the Prophet by the Prophet himself or any period afterwards through a conclusive argument or evidence. Once the religious truth has been conclusively conveyed, the individual becomes liable to receive punishment in the hereafter for denying or not accepting it. A person who has not received such conclusive evidence is hence not liable to punishment either because he or she has not been taught the truth of Islam in a proper way or because it has not reached him or her for some other reason. But this would not absolve them of holding any polytheistic beliefs.

  202. July 4th, 2015 at 3:58 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    The amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan which was passed reads:

    "A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophethood of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Muhammad (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law."

    This does declare anyone as "not a Muslim" who believes in the coming again of Jesus because such a person makes his belief in finality conditional and qualified by allowing a past prophet to come.

    If Jesus were to come then even if he did not claim to be a prophet at that time he would still claim to be a prophet in some sense or description because he would have to announce that he is that same person Jesus (Isa) who is called a prophet in the Quran!

    Note also that the amendment says: "…is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law." So such a person could still be a Muslim according to Quran and Hadith!

  203. July 4th, 2015 at 10:52 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    In his book Prophecy Continuous Friedmann writes on page 43:

    "The National Assembly of Pakistan thus arrogated to itself the authority of an assembly of theologians, competent to decide on matters of faith or infidelity, and to pronounce judgment on the religious affiliation of individual citizens. If the secret deliberations of the Assembly are ever made public, they should become one of the more fascinating documents concerning the relationship between religion and state. The minutes of the secret sessions will describe how a group of politicians, elected through a secular process, debate a subtle issue of Islamic theology. One may venture to say that a great number of them were ill-equipped for such a debate and easily succumbed to the arguments marshalled by representatives of the Jama‘at-i Islami and of the various groups of ulama. The ability of these to rally the masses behind the anti-Ahmadi cause must have provided very effective support for the religious argument; the prime minister and most members of the Assembly must have been impressed by that ability more than by the theological subtleties that had given rise to the issue in the first place.

    The action taken by the National Assembly is rather extraordinary when we consider the fact that Islamic history never knew assemblies convened for a similar purpose. …"

    I have placed here a scan of pages 42 and 43.

  204. With regards to Second Amendment in the Constitution as quoted by Dr. Zahid Aziz above, I see its close parallels to the Treaty of Hudaybiah, in which unbeknownst to Makkan, they with their own hands wrote terms which proved to be a death knell for themselves. Soon after the said Treaty the Surah Fath (Victory) was revealed. The Mullah, despite holding the pulpit and all the influence in the politics, has been unable to stop the mission of the Mujaddid, HMGA, which is be being Universalized with every next debate. Little did the Mullah know that the time will change and internet will be developed within a decade and a half and none of their nonsense will remain hidden or go unchallenged.

    And when (various) people will be united together,…And when books and papers will be spread abroad, And when the heights will be discovered (Quran 81:7,10,11)

    Now, all and sundry of Muslims are forced to accept the death of Jesus to establish the finality of the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon them), the true interpretation of Gog/Magog/Dajjal, Jihad by pen, Quran as the center of gravity for Islam without any abrogation of even a jot, validation of Hadiths in light of Quran, removal of any nonsense attributed to the pristine life of the Prophet etc. To the camp followers of Mullahs, all we ask them is to visit the lands under their sway and see with their own eyes the destruction at the hands of the Mullah and their evil ideologies:

    We have destroyed so many townships because (the people thereof) were given to wicked ways so that they have fallen down on their roofs, and how many a well is completely deserted: (similarly) many a strongly built lofty castles (met the same doom because We destroyed their occupants).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. (22:45-46)

    By any intelligent read of the said amendment, the Mullahs declared only themselves as ‘kafirs’ while they fully established LAM as Muslims, yet little will they accept their own folly. These are the ways of Allah. Allah-o-Akbar!

  205. July 9th, 2015 at 5:51 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Request to Dr. Zahid Aziz

    Sister Amna last two posts are on different subject than the general theme of this thread. It is requested, if her last 2 posts and my 1 post (in reply to her 1st post) could kindly be put under new thread, that will prevent discussion in this thread from diverting. Thanks.

    Response by Zahid Aziz:

    Done. This is now here.

  206. July 9th, 2015 at 5:52 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    The cross-examination of the Lahori jama’at

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 200: The cross-examination of the Lahori jama’at began on 27 August. They were presented in the assembly by the community head, Maulana Sadr-ud-Din (1881 – 1981), but he could not respond to questions because of old age. This was done on his part by Maulana Abdul Manan Omar.

    At the outset, the Lahori jama’at outlined their three main differences with Jama’at Ahmadiyyah of Rabwah. Firstly, they claimed never to have recognized Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet. The terms zilli and baruzi were meant for non-prophets only. According to them, this trend of describing Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet was introduced only after 1913 by the second head of the united Ahmadiyyah community, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mehmud. Secondly, they claimed never to have considered any denier of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a kafir. Thirdly, they dissociated themselves from the caliphate of the Rabwah groups and expressed belief in the caliphate of the first four pious caliphs of Sunni Islam. (Note 76).

    In his cross-examination, the AG [Attorney General] was mainly concerned about eliciting an indictment from the Lahori group against the Rabwah group for the latter’s belief in the prophetic status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Abdul Manan insisted – citing refernces from Imam Abu Hanifa – that even if an individual had 99 attributes of kufr and only 1 attribute of iman, he was to be considered a Muslim. (Note 77). When asked about the status of those who accept a person’s claim of prophethood, Abdul Manan referred to Imam Ghazali, who had given the benefit of doubt to such followers of false prophets. He used Ghazali's argument that maybe such persons mistakenly understood the word nabi as  rusul (messenger), and from the term Khatamun Nabiyyun they derive the meaning "magnificent" prophet". (Note 78). It was only through ijma (consensus), argued Abdul Mannan, that these terms had come to be understood as signifying the finality of prophethood. At best, then, followers of such claimants of false prophethood should be considered guilty of denying the ijma, for which the decree of kufr was not applicable. (Note 79). This response, however, had certain inadequacies, which were exploited by the AG [Attorney General] as he asked them about their views of Musailma — the claimant to prophethood against whom jihad was fought under the direction of the first caliph. In the first instance, Maulana Omar addressed him as kazzab (liar; a commonly known epithet in Muslim history), and insisted that there was a  difference between a liar and a kafir. (Note 80). But almost immediately afterwards he added that Musailma was kafir because he was a claimant of new shari'at and established a parallel prophethood to that of Prophet Muhammad. (Note 81). This provided him a reason with which to argue against the indictment of Ahmadis of the Rabwah group as kafirs because — going back to his earlier remark — they simply misunderstood the meaning of the term nabi rather than believing in a prophet who abolished the shari'at of Prophet Muhammad. When asked by the AG whether the interpretation given by the Rabwah group for term nabi and its use for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad put them outside the fold of Islam, Maulana Omar refrained from comment. He insisted that it would be unfortunate if the religious beliefs of people were evaluated and interpreted by others. (Note 82). Like Nasir Ahmad, Maulana Abdul Manan Omar, too, did not accept nonbelievers of Mirza Ghulam as  haqiqi musalman provided they had received itmam-i-hujjat. (Note 83). This was despite the fact that the Lahori jama'at believed in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad only as a mujaddid and not a prophet in any sense.

    Foot note 76 (page 255): Proceedings of the Special Committee (Saturday 24 August 1974), 1525.

    Foot note 77 (page 255): Proceedings of the Special Committee (Tuesday 27, August 1974), 1549.

    Foot note 78 (page 255): Ibid., 1552.

    Foot note 79 (page 255): Ibid., 1552-3.

    Foot note 80 (page 255): Ibid., 1560-61.

    Foot note 81 (page 255): Ibid., 1562.

    Foot note 82 (page 255): Ibid., 1577.

    Foot note 83 (page 255): Ibid., 1700-1706


    Above excerpt is the full text on Lahore Ahmadiyya Movment testimony in Usman A. Qasmi book. In this text there are at least two inaccuracies, that I would like to discuss in separate threat specific for this purpose. I would request posters to hold their comments for now.

    My purpose of posting above text is to make Mehmudis realize that despite the fact you people do not consider LAM members as Muslims. You prove it by your actions i.e. by not offering prayer behind LAM imam, and by not offering Janaza prayer of LAM members. On the other hand LAM representative in National Assembly was making all efforts to prevent national assembly members declaring you people (Mehmudis) as Kafir.

  207. July 12th, 2015 at 5:49 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Malik Mohammad Jafar — Minister in Cabinet of Z. A. Bhutto.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    For the members of parliament the social and political differences of the Ahmadis — as reflected in the managing of their own administrative affairs, closing Rabwah to non-Ahmadis, disallowing the marriage of Ahmadi girls to non-Ahmadi men, refusing to offer funeral prayers to non-Ahmadis — reinforced the argument for their religious exclusion. As Malik Jafar pointed out in the assembly, in religious terms the Ahmadis claimed to follow Hanafi fiqh, which made them closer to the majority of Sunni Hanafi Muslims in Pakistan. If it had been a difference of rituals alone, argued Jafar, then the Ahmadis would have remained one of the sects regardless of the fatwas issued against them. (Note 99). But unlike any other sect, he added, the founder of Jama'at Ahmadiyyah had claimed prophethood. […]

    Mufti Mehmud talked about incorporating a precise legal definition so as to preclude any possibility of non-Muslims to exercise those rights reserved exclusively for Muslim citizens. For this purpose, he demanded, not just Ahmadis but Jews, Christians and Hindus should also be defined in the constitution. A reference to the concept of khatam-i-nabuwwat alone was not acceptable, as Mehmud argued that Ahmadis, too, accept it in their own twisted way. (Note 101). This concept, argued Malik Jafar, was in any case inadequate to exclude the members of the Lahori jama'at, who only believed in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a revivalist of Islam. He therefore recommended mentioning Ghulam Ahmad and his followers by name in order to avoid any confusion. (Note 102).

    Foot note 99 (page 256): Proceedings of the Special Committee (Thursday 5 September 1974), 2656-7.

    Foot note 101 (page 256): Ibid., 2922.


    Malik Mohammad Jafar (1914-1999) belonged to Ahmadi family. He studied in Ahmadiyya high school in Qadian. Late Abdul Mannan Omar sahib knew him from those days. Malik Jafar was minister in cabinet of Z.A. Bhutto. Later he turned  against Ahmadiyya and wrote a book against Ahmadiyya. I forgot name of that book. He spent years in Qadiani Jamaat and became aware of QK2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad and his organization. Unfortunately, his view of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was only through the lens of Qadiani Jamaat. As a result in his book he also berated HMGA. In his opinion all HMGA wanted was to establish his family enterprise. According to Abdul Mannan Omar sahib, he said to him (in Punjabi) there are three stages of business: Chatti — when a shop owner spends his savings to start a business. Hutti — whatever shop owner earns he invests it back into business. Khatti — when shop owner starts making profit off a business. When Promised Messiah started getting huge financial contributions, he did not stash it for his family. And his survivors were provided assistance by Sadar-Anjuman. Malik Jafar remained quiet.

    It is so sad that because of QK2 and his policies intellectuals belonging to Ahmadi families, from time of HMGA, not only denounced QK2 and left his Qadiani Jama'at but also turned against HMGA. Examples of such individuals are poet Sir Dr. Mohammad Iqbal, and Malik Jafar.

    Malik Jafar trust website:  

  208. July 12th, 2015 at 11:19 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Please see my comment above about Malik Muhammad Jafar's statement as recorded in the National Assembly 1974 proceedings.

  209. July 12th, 2015 at 11:25 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    In the Ahmadiyya Case, which ended in 1985, in our evidence we quoted one Muhamamd Ja`far Khan, who appears to be the same person as the one mentioned above. The quotation from his book Ahmadiyya Tahrik was as follows:

    “We consider the Lahore Group in a sense to be victims of injustice. As compared to the Qadianis, they are much fewer in number, but they have done much more solid work for the propagation of Islam than the Qadianis. In this connection, the names of Maulana Muhammad Ali and Khawaja Kamal-ud-Din are specially worthy of mention. The Maulana has translated the Holy Quran into English, and written a three-volume Urdu commentary on the Quran as well. The English translation was very important at that time because, probably, only non-Muslims had translated the Quran into English up to that time. The Maulana’s decision to bring out another edition of the English translation without the Arabic text is also praise-worthy, because we consider this to be necessary in translating and spreading the Quran in other languages. Besides these books the Maulana has also translated the Sahih Bukhari into Urdu. This two-volume book also has useful explanatory notes. Although the manner of deduction in many of his explanatory notes will not be acceptable to many people, it will be conceded by everyone that these books have been written after great labour and full research, and are a useful and thought-provoking addition to Islamic literature. The Maulana has also written some other books such as Collection of the Holy Quran, and Position of Hadith. Khawaja Kamal-ud-Din has written countless books and pamphlets on a diverse range of religious subjects in Urdu and English. His English books, especially, have proved valuable in the propagation of Islam in Europe.”

    (Ahmadiyya Tahrik, Sind Sagar Academy, Lahore, 1958, pp. 312 – 313) 

    Visit this link and scroll down to Number 8.

    I am adding the following remark later on to the above comment.

    Malik Jafar wrote in 1958 (see above):

    "We consider the Lahore Group in a sense to be victims of injustice."

    In 1974 Malik Jafar proved it by his own actions!

  210. July 12th, 2015 at 8:42 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    At this link I have placed a scanned image of the pages from Malik Jafar's book containing the above translated extract, along with the title page of the book. Read from last line of p. 312 over to p. 313.

    Hafiz Sher Mohammad sahib marhoom had all the original books with him in Cape Town for the court case. After the case finished in November 1985, I had a couple of days before my return flight. I spent the time in making photocopies from his books of the quotations we had presented, like this one, which till today are in two box files. I could not have known then that a time would come when I would be scanning them in.

  211. August 8th, 2015 at 3:35 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    AG on LAM in his concluding speech.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 207: In the latter part of his speech, the AG (Attorney General) cited examples from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's writings in which he was shown to have digressed from the cardinal principles of Islam which were essential for its organic unity. In undermining this unity, the AG found the Lahori jama'at equally guilty, though he referred to them only once during his concluding arguments. He referred to the cross-examination of the head of the Lahori group in which the latter was asked about the use of term muhaddis by the Lahoris instead of nabi when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had used the term nabi in his writings for himself. The AG said that he was "shocked to hear that the Lahori group did not use the word 'Nabi' for him because people got annoyed. So, it was expediency more than anything else. " (Note 115). The AG did not go into the details of terms  nabi and muhaddis as interpreted by the Lahori group in terms of frequent dialogue with the divine or their unreserved and absolute reiteration in the concept of khatam-i-nabuwwat.

    Comment: In initial part of above paragraph, I develop an impression that AG thinking and opinion was result of influence of anti-HMGA and Mehmudi interpretations of HMGA's claims and writings. In latter part of same paragraph it became obvious to me that AG was a dishonest person. AG gives his sweeping opinion that LAM also considers HMGA nabi the way Mehmudis  believe with total disregard to terms  nabi and muhaddis as interpreted by HMGA and LAM.

  212. August 8th, 2015 at 6:17 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    1. If Yahya Bakhtiar and Ali Usman Qasmi have used the spelling muhaddis (with an "i") instead of muhaddas then it is a clear error. The words muhaddas and muhaddis are different. Muhaddas is one who is spoken to, and muhaddis is one who speaks (compare employee and employer). So in Islam muhaddas is one spoken to by Allah while not being a prophet, while muhaddis is a specialist in the field of Hadith (because he relates a talk). Shah Wali-ullah of Dehli and others bear the title muhaddis.

    2. It was Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who signed a statement in public after a debate in Lahore with a Maulvi in 1892 that "I wish to make it clear to all Muslim brothers that, if they are displeased with these words and if these words give injury to their feelings, they may regard all such words as amended, and instead consider me to have used the word muhaddas." (See link.)

    And the reason why they "got annoyed" was, he writes, that they misunderstood his use of the words nabi and rasul, so he said that they could regard him as using the word muhaddas because it expresses the same meaning in Islamic technicality as nabi and rasul do in their literal form.

    Please also read my earlier comment in the discussion above (link) where I have shown that when Yahya Bakhtiar presented his argument that before 1890 Hazrat Mirza sahib believed in finality of prophethood (but claimed prophethood in 1890), he gave quotations which he thought were pre-1890 but they are actually from later years when according to YB he had claimed to be a prophet! So the quotations presented by him only proved that Hazrat Mirza sahib did not claim to be a prophet in the later period. Hence his argument collapses by its own contradiction.

  213. Mr. Aziz,

    With all due respect intended, the reason I had mentioned in the past, that the people before me were ill-equiped to handle Ahmadiyya and its arguments is now proven…..based on your comments on YB.

    Ahmadiyya is an extremely difficult subject to grasp…it takes many years of intense work, which seems almost impossible 30+ years ago…

    Warm regards..  

  214. August 9th, 2015 at 10:22 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    @Dr. Zahid Aziz:

    I rechecked text in Ali Qasmi book. He has used spellings 'muhaddis'. In his book author has mentioned in more than one place that AG Yahya Bakhtiar depended on 'Ulema' in national assembly on understanding issue from religious angle. So, i am sure AG YB had no clue what was in reality claim of HMGA sahib.

    I want to thank you for clarifying difference between 'muhaddis' and 'muhaddas'. This is very important and fundamental point. Thanks once again.

    One should not be judgmental on someone who has not made claim of 'mamur-min-Allah'. Since AG YB has also become public figure and i have read comments about him. These kind of comments give credence to his very superficial knowledge of Islam, and Islamic terminology. 

  215. August 9th, 2015 at 10:30 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Mehmudi Wish in 1946 Granted in 1974.

    The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

    Page 211: [Zafar Ahmad] Ansari concluded his speech […]. The solution for the [Mehmudi] Ahmadis was to accept the petition which they themselves had presented before the British in 1946 requesting to be registered as a separate community like Christians and Parsis. The [Mehmudi] Ahmadis should think, said Ansari, that the petition they filed to their "British masters" in 1946 had finally been accepted by the Pakistani state and they were now finally to be declared a separate religious community. (Note 134).

    Comment: It was QK2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad and his Mehmudi followers who asked the British Raj authorities to register them as separate community from Muslims in 1946. Lahori Ahmadis considered themselves as part of Muslim community. They NEVER asked British Raj authorities to consider them as separate community from Muslim community. It is indeed very unfortunate that Lahori Ahmadis were lumped with QK2 followers and declared non-Muslims by Pakistan National Assembly in 1974. This shows indeed the real injustice was done to Lahori Ahmadis in 1974 even though they had NO role in practicing and propagating perverted beliefs of Mehmudis or had any role in Rabwah train station incident that reignited the anti-ahmadiyya fire in summer of 1974.

  216. August 10th, 2015 at 6:23 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Dear Mr Bashir, you write: "the reason I had mentioned in the past, that the people before me were ill-equiped to handle Ahmadiyya and its arguments is now proven".

    This is reminiscent of what a person posting here in June as "Bilal" was saying, and I asked him then:

    "As I understand it, your claim is that you are by far the most effective debator against the Ahmadiyya Movement who ever arose since 1891." (link)

    He replied: "And I am not boasting of intellectual supremacy, I am boasting of technology that allows me to memorize less and research more." (link)

    So we have two persons making the same claim of being the most effective anti-Ahmadiyya fighter who ever arose in history.  Do you want to compete with each other to prove who is the best?

    And of course, it was Bilal and not Bashir who came up with his great discovery that it was in 1935 that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad announced that he didn't call other Muslims as kafir, and he insisted that the LAM amend its literature to reflect this discovery (see discussion in the above links).

    But at least Bashir has admitted that all earlier opponents of Ahmadiyyat, including those in the National Assembly proceedings, were unable to prove Ahmadiyyat wrong, despite their claims of doing so. Therefore all their fatwas, constitutional amendments and laws, against Ahmadis were without any valid basis (as it was before Bashir's time).

  217. August 11th, 2015 at 6:17 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Dear Mr Bashir: You have been e-mailing me directly on some subjects since a day or two before you submitted the above comment. You have continued that e-mail discussion after sending the above comment. But despite being reminded by me that I have published your comment and have responded to it, you are not replying here. Please reply to my above response.

    We are not interested in you having been a USAF veteran or your seeing "major combat in 2001 and 2003", or fixing "many of the aircraft that bombed Afghanistan", or your claim that "In the USA I am a hero to my hometown", or that "I am pro-USA, I don't care about any other country", which is what you are ranting in your e-mails to me.

  218. Mr. Aziz,

    It may surprise you that more than one person has taken advantage of the internet.  Stop mudslinging, which is typical Ahmadi argument style.

    {Blog admin: Deliberate digression and abuse omitted}

    I never said that the NA didnt you prove your religion as a family business or any other connotation.  I said that there were minor errors and gaps in research since Ahmadiyya data was written by many ghost-writers and a team of people that were obviously unaware of the changes of MGA's claims…and hence, there are many twists and turns that only a person with the internet can solve.

    Finally, the reason I explained my resume was in response to your question of "what are you doing for Islam" or "what have you done to change the world" or "what are you doing to help people"…Further, I am so glad I grew up in the Bay Area…wherein I have friends from all backgrounds..and I love all of them irregardless of religion, and I dont pray for their death if they disagree with me…

    Warm regards..


  219. August 11th, 2015 at 8:55 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    It's the old tactic of shifting your ground. The man who wrote above: 

    "the reason I had mentioned in the past, that the people before me were ill-equiped to handle Ahmadiyya and its arguments is now proven"

    now writes: "I said that there were minor errors and gaps in research…"

    And he now writes that the NA of Pakistan did prove Ahmadis to be kafir. If they did, then Bashir's extra efforts amount to no more than putting a very thin layer of icing on the existing cake created by the anti-Ahmadiyya of the past!

    We now also learn from Bashir that he is actually not unique in his research but that "more than one person" has achieved what he has done, and of course Bilal has surpassed him because of the 1935 date discovery. Is Bashir willing to have a contest with Bilal as to who is better, so that I can then debate with whoever is the first class person and not waste my time with the second class one?

    Regarding his last paragraph, what I actually asked him in the e-mail exchange (started by him) was: "since the Prophet Muhammad is a far more important and influential world figure than Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, your efforts would be far better directed to researching his life and proving either that he was true, or, if you wish, that he was false. In this way your research will help the billions of people who either believe in or reject him."

    He responded: We Sunni Muslims of the USA dont do large scale preaching as a business or a job creator..since I was a born Ahmadi, I have taken an interest in exposing the true beliefs of Ahmadis and more importantly the contradictions.

    I replied: 

    So since you are a Sunni Muslim, and you use expressions like "we don't do this, that or the other", you are then as much duty-bound to defend the beliefs and behaviour of Sunni Muslims of USA as much as I am bound to defend LAM. You are then duty bound to defend the Prophet Muhammad against his critics. But you have shown that you have no interest in this whatsoever, even if his opponents routinely call him a child abuser, murderer etc.

    To this he replied: "If someone wants to learn Islam, they can google it."

    And he added: "Furthermore, Islam is a govt.  It much more then a religion.  I am not willing to try to establish a new govt., I am happy with President Obama and I live my people. Americans, Californians. etc etc etc. And I currently live in the USA and love the laws. So I dont understand why you are attacking me with this 'Well, what are you doing' attitude."

    So it is now established that Bashir is not motivated by any love for Islam in his hatred for Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. In fact, he rejects what he himself believes to be an actual teaching of Islam, having found that the US system of government is preferable to what, he thinks, Islam teaches. He should ask "Sunni Muslims" whether they consider such a rejector of Islam to still be a Muslim or to have become a kafir.

  220. August 12th, 2015 at 5:57 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    In the e-mail exchange I mentioned above, Bashir wrote that Ahmadiyyat was a means of just creating jobs for "Pakistanis, who are normally not fond of the 40-hour work week".

    He also said that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's message spread because: "people in general from 3rd world countries were never taught to think properly…they mostly have a backwardness that is hard to break."

    On the same topic, Bilal, wrote on this blog: "But, as we know, most Indians are naive and use faith over reason." (link) Well, great minds do think alike!

    Apart from these views being racist stereotyping, someone could say that if this is the reason why his message spread, it could also be why people opposed him so much more than accepting him!

  221. Bashir Shah sent me an e-mail on 19th August referring me to the academic work of one Dr Afzal Upal and saying:

    "…he is just getting started..and I will be working with him…"

    I have looked up some articles by Afzal Upal, who is in effect trying to prove from the field of sociology that all founders of religions were deluded in their claims. There is one article portraying Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as akin to a modern-day Muslim extremist who is intolerant of other religions and calls for punishment for blasphemy. I have written a reply to it.

    At this link you can access both his article and my reply. I advise that readers go through his article first and then read my reply.

    For information about Afzal Upal you can see the Wikipedia page about him:

  222. Dear Saad sahib: I wish to draw your attention to the following point which should be of as much concern to your Jamaat as it is to us.

    From my comment above, you will see that a Dr Afzal Upal has made various allegations against Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and I have replied to his article. On the issues involved, I think your Jamaat holds the same beliefs and views which I have expressed. Please read my response (link), or have it read by someone else in your Jamaat, and let me know if you agree with my replies.

    Dr Afzal Upal certainly was a member of your Jamaat, and it appears that he still has a connection with your Jamaat, so it is very surprising that he had written such articles.

  223. @Zahid Aziz

    I have briefly read through it an it is very well witten and destroys Upal arguement completley. The fact you quote Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) only makes you paper stronger. Your views seem to be synonymous with our Jama'at here. Our Jama'at has reponded to Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and company hundreds of times but they just don't stop. In my perspective, it better just to ignore Jihadwatch altogether as these people and their following have already closed their hearts.

  224. He is no longer an Ahmadi or part our Jamaat from what I have seen on the internet. I think he is probably an atheist.

  225. My point here was not about responding to Jihadwatch etc. in general in their allegations against Islam. It was that as a former member of your Jamaat has misrepresented the Promised Messiah it should become your Jamaat's concern to reply and correct him.

    Yet on his publicly-accessible Facebook page, Afzal Upal posted an item in May displaying certificates obtained by his children in a speech and Quran competition held by the Nasirat-ul-Ahmadiyya Canada. This would suggest that he is still connected to your Jamaat.

  226. If Mirza Ahmad Qadiani shahib was the promised masiha, Imam Mehdi or a prophet then all crows are white not black. Please use your brain and realize that he was not a masiha or prophet. He and his friends wanted to make British government happy by hurting Muslim community with this drama. They started saying that he was Imam Mehdi, Jesus or a new prophet. I didn't find any truth in these claims that's why I have stopped believing in him as a leader or a guide of my religious beliefs.  Thank you Allah for helping me finding the truth.

  227. 1. I know it is difficult for people such as you to exercise reason, logic and commonsense, but why would the British be "happy" with someone who calls their religion as false (at the time when the vast majority of British people were staunch Christians), and claims to have come in the likeness of Jesus whom they regarded as the son of God? Why would they be happy at being called "Dajjal" or Anti-Christ?

    2. You may have stopped believing in him but the moral calibre of you people is so low that for any worldly inducement you are prepared to become Ahmadis! I receive one or two e-mails per week from Muslims of Pakistan asking to become Ahmadis. For example,

    20th September: "I send my first mail to u and l m living in lahore pakistan. I feel some change of my life for the satisfcion of my soul. I wish and realy happy to join ur cummunity."

    8th September: "I am from Pakistan and living in Sweden now a days. My wife n two children 7 years and 5 years old are in Pakistan but they have got their visa a few days ago so hope they'll be here also in a couple of weeks. I want to join Jamat-e-Ahmadiyya. For this holy purpose I were waiting for my family's  visa which they've got now. I want your help to join Jamat so I'll be waiting for you."

    1st September: "My name is Zafar. Did i send email to the rite place? Is it Ahmadi organization? I need help. Please answere me if i am talking to rite person then i will explane my problem. Thank's for your time. Please answere ASAP i will be waiting for your kind reply."

    These people want to become Ahmadis so they can reside in the West (by claiming falsely that they were being persecuted in Pakistan). Please do tell them not to become Ahmadis because we don't want such people. They belong to you and you can keep them!

  228. October 10th, 2015 at 9:00 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Muslims Swearing-in Allegiance to Queen of England.

    Opponents of HMGA object on his praise and loyalty to Queen Victoria for ensuring freedom of religion for Muslims in then British India. Previously I have written posts on this subject in this thread.

    Whereas the same opponents of HMGA are happy to tell the world that Government of Canada has allowed a Muslim woman Zunera Ishaq to take oath, while wearing niqab (face covering), of Canadian citizenship and pledge allegiance to another Queen of England i.e. Elizabeth, a decedent of Queen Victoria. This allegiance is not only limited to Queen Elizabeth but extends further to her progeny such as Prince Charles etc. I don’t know if HMGA knew anything about negative personal character of Queen Victoria, if there was any such, but in this era of information, opponents of HMGA are very well aware of personal character of progeny of Queen Elizabeth. I can only hope, against the hope, that these opponents of HMGA feel some shame for their unfair opposition to HMGA.

    Please watch following Youtube clip:

    Watch: Zunera Ishaq takes her citizenship oath

  229. Zahid Aziz, Rashid,

    You both conveniantly forget that the majority of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's followers only joined his Jamaat because of the economic benefits that being part of this community conferred upon them.

    I am sure that "burming issues" such as the death of Jesus etc did not give them any sleepless nights, atleast no more than virgn birth etc.

    The economic benefits and the patronage of the British on the hand would have no doubt been a key reason for joining.

    That is no doubt why when his son, Khalifa II, promoted his father, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from a reformer to prophet the rank and file of the community did not so much as make a whimper. It did not matter to them. What they cared about was being part of this community and all the benefits.

    Economically that is still the case Ahmadis can move to America/Europe by claiming asylum relatively easily.

    Had Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's family raised him another step to full prophethood, and changed the Kalima, (or it's meaning – which another one of his sons certainly did do) – that too would have been accepted by the rank and file.

  230. So when Maulana Nur-ud-Din joined as the first follower, giving up his lucrative employment as physician to a maharaja, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad single-handedly was able to enrich him to beyond the Maulana's previous earnings. And what benefits, comforts and facilities were available in the village of Qadian?

    What did Maulana Muhammad Ali gain by turning down a career in law and settling in Qadian for a pittance of pay?

    My grandfather Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi (whose book your Muslim friends are widely plaigarising to make money), who accepted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, worked on a low salary as missionary and could have made millions as an academic.

    I am pleased that you admit that it was Mirza Mahmud Ahmad who promoted his father from mujaddid to prophet. The "rank and file" did not whimper because it was their normal experience from other Muslims of India to follow the son as leader after the father.

    As to Ahmadis claiming asylum in Western countries, your fellow-Muslims are wanting to falsely claim to be Ahmadis to claim asylum as I mentioned in my comment above. What does that say about non-Ahmadi Muslims? Would you say: "The rank and file of ordinary Muslims want economic benefits so badly that they are prepared to join Ahmadiyyat despite considering it to be a separate religion from Islam?"

    I have received e-mails from your fellow-Muslims wanting asylum who write: "I want to join your religion". I am happy to put them in touch with you!

    Since you, Mr Ali, live in England, a few miles north of me, don't you benefit from "British patronage"?

  231. October 13th, 2015 at 1:35 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    @ Ali:

    When Maulana Noor ud Din left job as physician and minister of Maharaja his monthly salary was Indian Rupees 50,000 (fifty thousands). That was more than 100 years ago. Maulana decided to work for another Maharaja i.e. HMGA. He paid him so much that the day Maulana left this world THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE RUPEE. There was NO money in his home. Now i leave it to your imagination how much money HMGA paid to Maulana Noor ud Din.

    My late father, during his student days, worked as assistant to Maulana Muhammad Ali. Maulana use to have one long coat. All his life he had that same coat. My father later became lawyer of higher courts in British India and then Pakistan. He was able to buy car from estate sale of one of Maharaja. But Maulana could not afford to buy a new coat. I leave it to your imgination to figure how much HMGA use to pay him.

    Maulana Sadr ud Din could not afford his own house all his life. Go figure how much financial benefits he received from HMGA.

    Just because you have seen Mehmudis Khalifas (QK2 to QK5) does NOT mean HMGA paid monies to those who joined him.

  232. Mr Ali writes: "…majority of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's followers only joined his Jamaat because of the economic benefits …"

    Have you thought what were they before becoming his followers? Yes, they were members of your community. So please try to improve the moral calibre of your own fellows so they don't sell their faith for money!

  233. Mr. Aziz,

    Wasnt Muhammad Ali the highest paid employee of MGA? Didnt Mahmud Ahmad post this reference in one of his newspapers?  Didnt MGA pay Muhammad Ali's debts from community funds?  Wasnt Amrohi the first employee of MGA? And Nooruddin didnt move to Qadian til a few years after 1889 (his bait), and when he did, he got free food and lodging and he became the chief ghost writer (IMHO, see the birth of Esa and BA vol. 5).  Since he lived with MGA, as did Amrohi and Muhamamd Ali and many others…

    And yes, most people joined Ahmadiyya for the economic benefit of it, in fact, many Lahori's flip flopped from Qadian to Lahore, the list is extensive.  And you could never explain Amrohi's flip flop, nor are you willing to translate any of his books for the world to see.  And lets not mention the Chooray that joined that Masroor recently father was uneducated and backwards, he joined Ahmadiyya and got a good job and a good wife, in comparison to the average Pakistani. 

    And i will respond to your essay vs. Afzal Upal..just need time. I have already spotted your errors and omissions.  And in the future, bring up these arguments to seasoned veterans of Ahmadiyya literature, like me, not rookies or those who make mistakes, in fact, even the Mazarhana as presented by Mirza Nasir Ahmad in 1974 had many mistakes in terms of prophethood.  And further, I visited Pakistan in 2003 and 2004, I never saw 1 honest hard working person, everyone was a con-man, which is typical of 3rd world countries, moreover, the beggars of Rabwah were out of control, no shame at all.  And developed countries may have similar issues, however, in Pakistan, its is out of control in terms of the begging…and Ahmadis are also just like them, rich or not, they will beg for money….either from relatives or from whomever..I went to about 100 peoples homes for dinner and 50% of the people begged us for money…or take their children to the USA..

    Bashir Shah, so you know who wrote it! 

  234. I have published your sick allegations for theraputic reasons so you can get that vomit out of your system. Feeling better now?

    Anyone who has read Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din's writings can see the entirely different style and way of expression and explanation he has from that of Hazrat Mirza sahib.

    You say we are not willing to translate any of Amrohi sahib's books "for the world to see". The "world" is you, is it? Hundreds of millions of Muslims, including vast numbers of opponents of Ahmadis (including Dr Afzal Upal), can read his Urdu books!

    Why should you feel bound to reply to my article about Afzal Upal's paper? Surely, he himself should be replying.

  235. What did I write which is incorrect?  

    1.  As you know, the Qaidanis claim that Amrohi and Abdul Kareem argued over the NEW prophethood of MGA in 1900, the argument led to MGA's house (see Mahmud Ahmad, HN {1915}). Obviously, Abdul Kareem was another ghost writer who was told to begin proclaiming MGA's prophethood and Amrohi didnt know about it yet…in fact, even in 1915, he didnt know about it, or understand it properly, even after reading Mahmud Ahmad's QF book (1915), he seemed to support it.  Moreover, Abdul Kareem gave most of MGA's speeches for him and he interrupted MGA many times during Khutbah Ilhamiya.  So, in conclusion, it is IMHO, the MGA had 3-5 ghost writers. As did  Mahmud Ahmad.  

    2.  Further, Nooruddin did the bait of MGA in 1889, however, he disagreed with him on the birth of 1903, MGA had harsh remarks for ALL of those who believed that esa (as) had a bio father..have you seen those remarks? You dont quote them much..

    3.  English is the greatest language ever…in every faucet, if anything isnt in english…it almost doesnt exist..and is hidden.  Thats my point..instead of spending time on meetings…Ahmadis have work to do..

    4.  I want to respond to it because it is easy for me…who had read more about Ahmadiyya then me in the past 10 years? And who has amazing criticcal thinking abilities to match? Did I ever tell you that I fixed billion dollar fleets of aircraft for the USAF, and was the top guy over there and in the world from 2001 to 2004??  And with 0 college level degrees til 2006?  


  236. Bashir Shah's record is as follows:

    1. He has been posting here under several different false names (Bilal, etc.), to deceive us into thinking that these were all different persons.

    2. In submitting some comments, he supplied the e-mail address of a staff member at his US college (one Margaret Howell) as his e-mail address.

    3. He has been making racist and condescending remarks about Indians, Pakistanis and people from poorer countries generally. See my comment above. In Bashir Shah's last comment he writes in point (3): "if anything isn't in English it almost doesn't exist".

    He has claimed to be working in what he calls: "my world, the world of academia". In that world, to pass such remarks about racial groups is a serious disciplinary offence which could lead to dismissal.

    4. He has been calling the religion of Islam as backward in comparison with the USA system of government. He was speaking about Islam, not actions of some Muslims.

    5. He sent me a paper by Afzal Upal, being delighted with his research conclusions. According to that paper, any claimant of revelation has ulterior motives of personal gain for claiming to receive revelation, and all such claimants are "self-deceived". The example cited in detail is Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, which is what made Bashir Shah so happy.

    But Upal's analysis applies also to the Holy Prophet Muhammad and prophets before him. Upal actually writes that Hazrat Mirza's belief that "the truth had become distorted during the dark ages of Islam… is precisely the same process through which Muslims believe that Jesus and Moses’ teachings had been corrupted by the Christians and Jews over time" (p. 222). In other words, he means that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad used the same trick as the Prophet Muhammad before him did, to establish a new religious movement.

    Upal also quotes a theory, as advanced by some, that those who claimed to receive Divine wisdom were suffering from "psychotic episodes" due to "certain mental illnesses such as epilepsy, hysteria, paranoia, and schizophrenia". It is clear that Upal regards this theory as a conceivably valid explanation, despite knowing that this was an accusation made against the Holy Prophet, and widely propagated by his Western critics.

    While Bashir Shah is happy to see such so-called research papers and circulate them, he also writes to me: "The Muslims in my local community love me, in fact, I am the Faculty advisor for many Muslim Student Associations..and I provide guidance daily..and my interpretations of hadith and Quran are appreciated."

    Has Bashir Shah shown his Muslim friends this paper and told them he recommends its conclusions?

    6. Another article by Afzal Upal, which I myself found, is the one I have refuted. Please see my comment above. It is a most dangerous article for Muslims in the current world circumstances because it alleges that even moderate Muslim organizations are bound to support intolerance against other religions. It has been reproduced by the anti-Islamic website JihadWatch. According to that article, a Muslim defender of Islam by the pen such as Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is being intolerant against other religions if he merely replies to their vituperation in writing, but those who produce the abuse against Islam should be supported because of the principle of freedom of speech.

    Bashir Shah says he wants to defend Upal's article against my refutation of it because no one has read more about Ahmadiyyat than him and he has "amazing critical thinking abilities". He doesn't realize that if an author is shown to be wrong in his conclusions based on his knowledge, and his supporter jumps in and says "I have more knowledge which proves his conclusions to be correct", the original article is still wrong! I could only reply to Afzal Upal's actual article in existence, not to some imaginary extension of it which only exists in Bashir Shah's mind.

    The only way forward, which I had earlier suggested to Bashir Shah in an e-mail reply, is that instead of each of us rejecting the other's arguments unilaterally, we ask a senior academic colleague of Bashir to act as an impartial judge. So the only submission from Bashir that I will entertain now will be the contact details of such an academic. I will post to that person Bashir's above record and ask if Bashir Shah is at all a fit person even to take part in a serious debate.

  237. Bashir Shah has responded, and as usual he throws around all manner of accusations. The relevant part of his response is as follows:

    "4.  This isnt 1891. I dont find judges and ask them to solve my discussions.  My discussions are ongoing and continue based on new research finds."

    The judges will not be deciding whose beliefs are correct or determining the true position on any issue. They will be determining whether each party has answered the other party's questions, whether something in the answers is irrelevant, and the quality of the answers.

    For example, in his full response (which I am not publishing so we can focus on the above point) he writes: "Akber C found something new, a new debate from Shimla, and I read your response, it was terrible".

    Who decides that my response was "terrible"?

    He also writes: "you took 3 weeks to write that response to Dr. Upal, that was hilarious".

    Who decides whether my taking 3 weeks over it, or my response itself, was "hilarious"?

    That is why Bashir Shah should put forward some senior academic from one of his colleges (e.g. Merritt, Peralta, DeVry) who can be asked to determine whether my responses were "terrible" and "hilarious", and whether it is a sufficient refutation of them to call them by these epithets.

  238. Bashir Shah has sent another comment beginning with:

    "In typical 3rd world fashion, you have ignored everything I wrote."

    Well, I said I would ignore it, until we have a sort of referee or moderator as I mentioned.

    Bashir's statement is more proof of his racist and denigrating stereotyping. It reminds me of a man who used to swear in every sentence. When he heard that someone had complained about his swearing, he said: "Which ******* ******* says that I swear?