The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog


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| Issue 89 | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3‎ — new, 28th June 2013


November 25th, 2013

Nadeem F Paracha on Ahmadiyya Issue

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.


Nadeem F Paracha is a famous columnist in Pakistani English language daily Dawn. He is left leaning writer. In his articles he does recap of history on any particular subject. His writes ups are based on a reasonable research. In his articles he has been sympathetic to state of ahmadis (basically Qadianis in Pakistan) in general. His recent article published in Dawn online on November 21, 2013: The 1974 ouster of ‘heretics’: What really happened?

Some quotes from article:

“To do so I did go through some literature produced by orthodox Sunni and Shia ulema and those associated with the Ahmadiyya community during the commotion, but that literature is largely theological.”

“Instead, my findings in this respect are squarely based on, and culled from the writings of historians and authors who, I believe, have transcribed the history of the event in the most objective and informed manner.”

“A series of modern, as well as puritanical reformist Muslim movements emerged after the complete fall of the Muslim Empire in India in the mid-1800s.

The Ahmadiyya movement was one of them. The Ahmadiyya community was founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who claimed he was under divine instruction to fulfil the major prophecies contained in Islamic and other sacred texts regarding a world reformer who would unite humanity.

He announced to Christians awaiting the second coming of Jesus, Muslims anticipating the Mahdi, Hindus expecting Krishna, and Buddhists searching for Buddha, that he was the promised messiah for them all, commissioned by God to rejuvenate true faith.

When Mirza died the Ahmadiyya split into two sects: the ‘Qadianis’ and the ‘Lahoris’. The Qadianis claimed that Mirza was a prophet, and accused all Muslims who did not accept him as being non-Muslims. Claiming prophethood is regarded to be a major and unpardonable sin by a majority of Muslims, even though the Lahori faction believes that Mirza never claimed prophethood. Orthodox Muslim sects in South Asia believe that he did.

—————

Till about 1913, the Ahmadiyya movement was seen as a spiritual and evangelical branch of the modernist reformist Muslim initiatives triggered by the likes of Sir Syed and Syed Ameer Ali.

In fact, for a while, a number of Indian Muslim intellectuals were closely associated with the Ahmadiyya movement and considered Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a modern redeemer of faith in India.

Brilliant poet and philosopher, Muhammad Iqbal, too was once a great admirer of the movement.

Contrary to popular belief, agitation against the Ahmadiyya movement (by the orthodox Muslim sects and sub-sects in India) was not an immediate happening that emerged right after the formation of the community in 1889.

The more vocal accusations against the community first arose 24 years later in 1914 when an influential Ahmadiyya leader, Mirza Muhammad Ahmad, began to publicly declare that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a messiah and those Muslims who disagreed with this were infidels.

This further split the movement, with the so-called ‘Qadianis’ sticking to Mirza Muhammad Ahmad’s assertions and the ‘Lahori’ faction denouncing him and accusing him of inferring something that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had not claimed.

Nevertheless, the schism within the Ahmadiyya community and Mirza Muhammad Ahmad’s unabashed claims left the movement vulnerable against accusations of being heretical.”

“Along with the working classes and the petty-bourgeoisie of the Punjab, the Ahmadiyya had overwhelmingly voted for the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in the province during the 1970 election.

——-

On May 22, 1974, some 160 members of the Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba (IJT — the student of the Jamaat-i-Islami), boarded a train headed for Peshawar in the former NWFP. On its way to Peshawar, the train stopped for a while at the Rabwa railway station. The city of Rabwa was predominantly an Ahmadiyya town and also housed the community’s spiritual headquarters. As the train stopped at Rabwa, IJT students got out and began to raise slogans against the Ahmadiyya and cursed the community’s spiritual figurehead, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The train then left the station taking the charged students to Peshawar. No untoward incident was reported apart from the slogan-chanting and cursing.

However, when the incident was related to some Ahmadiyya leaders in Rabwa, they ordered Ahmadiyya youth to reach the station with hockey sticks and chains when the train stops again at Rabwa on its way back from Peshawar.

After finding out that the students would be returning to Multan from Peshawar on the 29th of May, dozens of young Ahmadiyya men gathered at the Rabwa station. As the train came to a halt, the men fell upon the bogeys carrying the IJT members. A fight ensued and 30 IJT men were severely beaten for insulting the religious sentiments of the Ahmadiyya.

A non-Ahmadiyya man who witnessed the commotion at the station told reporters that both the incidents (the slogans and retaliation) were unprecedented.”

Link to NFP article: http://dawn.com/news/1057427/the-1974-ouster-of-the-heretics-what-really-happened/1

31 Responses to “Nadeem F Paracha on Ahmadiyya Issue”

  1. November 27th, 2013 at 4:22 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Qadianis Rebuttal to Nadeem F Piracha Article

    Mohammed Rafiuddin, wrote in his Qadiani Organization online newspaper ‘Ahmadiyya Times’ on November 23, 2013 ‘Answering Nadeem F. Piracha: Bhutto – a reluctant hero?’:

    In appreciation and praise of NFP, Rafiuddin writes:

    “A recent article by Nadeem F. Paracha (NFP) has attempted to dig deeper and find out ‘what really happened’ during a dark chapter in our history. At the very outset let me declare a disclaimer: I am a great fan of NFP. He is one of the most talented writers in Pakistan. His column in Dawn is a must read for me every week. The fact that this week he was brave enough to tackle an issue that hardly gets any coverage is commendable. It is a chapter of Pakistani history that is controversial yet hardly gets discussed. It reminds me of the Fawlty Tower episode where Basil Fawlty keeps telling his British guests “Don’t mention the war”. However, he always ends up mentioning it himself to the dismay of his guests. In Pakistan however “Don’t mention the Ahmadis” is a pretty robust mantra that is adhered to religiously. No pun intended.
    So, imagine my excitement when I woke to read this week’s post ‘The 1974 ouster of the ‘heretics’: What really happened?  At last some ground realities will be shared with the general public on the 1974 National Assembly decision to excommunicate the Ahmadiyya community. NFP writes “it is important that one attempts to objectively piece together the events that led to the final act”.  Reading this, I was heartened that what would follow would be a fair and accurate reflection of the events.”

    As Rafiuddin realized that NFP wrote THE TRUTH, it made him very uncomfortable and he tried to “un-whitewash” history by making a blatant statement without providing any convincing evidence. He wrote:

    “The first point is that the original split into the two factions was not based on the status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad but rather on the successorship and leadership of the community”

    “Firstly, there is no Ahmadiyya leader by the name of Mirza Muhammad Ahmad….” [Rafiuddin made a big issue of typing mistake in NFP article. Instead of correcting and owning Mirza Mahmud Ahmad i.e. his QK2].

    [Referring to Rabwa Train Station incident] “I really didn’t expect this uncorroborated, unsubstantiated and irresponsible statement from NFP. After all, the title of the piece is “What really happened.” This really didn’t happen.”

    “Ahmadis do not declare anyone who adheres to the kalimah outside the pale of Islam. That has been the edict of the founder of the community and all the successors including the current leader Mirza Masroor Ahmad Sahib.”

    Link to Rafiuddin article: http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2013/11/answering-nadeem-f-piracha-bhutto.html

    Lutf Islam, Qadiani poster on this LAM blog, writes in his own blog that got reproduced in Qadiani newspaper online ‘Ahmadiyya Times’ on November 21, 2013, "Ahmadiyya Question – 1974": In response to Nadeem F. Paracha:
    In appreciation of NFP, he writes:

    “Nadeem F. Paracha is a respected columnist of the left-wing variety, a rare species in Pakistan these days. He is a keen observer of the modern history of a nation in the process of self-combusting into oblivion.”
    Lutf then gives a blatant verdict on NFP statements:

    “It is laziness and myopia indeed if an opinion is given without considering the religious motives which caused it. NFP then gives an opinion which is rather theological in nature:

    "The Qadianis claimed that Mirza was a prophet, and accused all Muslims who did not accept him as being non-Muslims".

    The above opinion is based on the false allegations raised by the Anti-Ahmadiyya clergy which was thoroughly discussed and refuted during the In-Camera proceedings held in 1974. Why was this question even taken to the parliament?” [Note: It is Lutf delusion that QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad was successful in refuting in 1974 National Assembly. Report released last year tells the opposite].

    “Now to the events of 1974 which culminated in that constitutional amendment. I find it rather amusing that NFP would defend Islami Jamiat Tulaba (IJT) like this. Even if a bunch of hooligans shouting profanities at Rabwah railway station got away with 13 minor injuries (as Samdani commission report confirmed) as a result of a brawl, ……” [Note: Has Lutf Islam read or even seen Justice Samdani Commission Report, and he uses word “confirmed”????????]

    Link to Lutf article: http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2013/11/ahmadiyya-question-1974-in-response-to.html

    PLEASE NOTE: This post I did NOT write for Qadianis, rather for Lahore Ahmadiyya Movment members. Especially those elder LAM members who did NOT live in Pakistan during times of QK2, QK3, QK4, and only come to know about QK2 character through some of my posts, and find it hard to believe, and even offensive. [As proved by editing of my posts by blogmaster]. By this I mean LAM members living in South America, Africa, Australia/ New Zealand, Indonesia/ Malaysia, and West European countries.  As far as Qadianis are concerned they follow the old adage ‘Different strokes for different folks’ in Urdu they call ‘Maslehat’ or ‘Tukhlia’. Basically they lie in different situations. So dear LAM members, please just imagine if minor Qadianis of today can turn their beliefs on a dime, imagine how their QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad turned on his beliefs/statements. From this it should not be hard to make assessment of character of QK2!


  2. Regarding M. Rafiuddin's comparison that: "It reminds me of the Fawlty Tower episode where Basil Fawlty keeps telling his British guests “Don’t mention the war”. However, he always ends up mentioning it himself to the dismay of his guests." At least this part is true and I have experienced it myself. In Pakistan I have visited people who, on my entering, have whispered into my ear: "Don't mention Ahmadiyyat in our house because our neighbours won't like it". Then later on during the same visit (during the 1980s), they themselves have asked me some question such as "Is Maulana Sadr-ud-Din still alive, if not, who is your Ameer?"

    There is another famous British TV comedy programme, "Dad's Army", about the "Home Guard" set in World War 2, in which an old ex-soldier always asks before speaking to his commanding officer: "Permission to speak, sir". That's because back in the days when he served in the regular army they had to ask permission to speak. So no doubt, I should also, in situations like the above, say: "Permission to speak, sir, because you have prohibited me to talk on this subject"!

    Anyhow, it is quite astonishing how Qadiani Jamaat spokesmen are now denying the very beliefs about which they argued and debated for decades. The following extract from the account given by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in The Truth about the Split shows the doctrinal differences which brought about the split. He says that on the eve of the meeting at which he was declared khalifa, Maulana Muhammad Ali came to see him, where some other leading supporters of his (i.e. of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad) were also present:

    "Maulawi Muhammad Ali at that time laid stress upon this very question. He pointed out that it was difficult to proceed with the election of a Khalifa, because there was such serious disparity of beliefs prevailing in the Community. One party regarded the Promised Messiah as a Nabi and his deniers as kuffar while the other party refused to subscribe to any such doctrine. Upon this, it was Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan who engaged Maulawi Muhammad Ali in argument, and tried to establish the validity of our beliefs. But I restrained him pointing out that the occasion was not one for the settlement of differences of belief." (p. 191 of online edition)

    So Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's own account clearly confirms Nadeem F. Paracha's statement that "The Qadianis claimed that Mirza was a prophet, and accused all Muslims who did not accept him as being non-Muslims".


  3. Dear Jahangiri Sahib,

    I wrote about the 13 minor injuries as confirmed by Justice Samdani based on the in-camera proceedings, where Hazrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad mentioned the findings to Yahya Bakhtiar, who did not refute him. The exact words used were '13 zarbat e khafeefa'.

    Justice Samdani himself issued a press release during his enquiry asserting that no major injuries (mutilations etc) were reported and whatever false stories about the event are circulating the press are incorrect.

    I have read the proceedings in detail and I have no doubt that the matter of Kufr and Islam was thoroughly explained by Hazrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad in the light of the writings of Promised Messiah (as). He also explained the much debated writings of Mirza Basheer Ahmad Sahib and Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II.

    As for the split, it was the beginning of divergence of beliefs between the two groups. Or should I say, public disgareements between them. Ahmadis were one Jamaat at the time of the demise of Promised Messiah (as) and throughout the time of Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih I.

    It is also wrong to assert that there was no motivation from the Lahori faction to assume the leadership of the whole community (i.e., khilafat).


  4. Lutf writes: "Ahmadis were one Jamaat at the time of the demise of Promised Messiah (as) and throughout the time of Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih I."

    On the other hand, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad writes in The Truth about the Split that at the December 1908 annual gathering:

    "…friends of Maulawi Muhammad Ali made special preparation for addresses on the occasion. In these addresses they sought one after another to impress upon the Community that the real successor and Khalifa appointed by the Promised Messiah was no other than the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya" (p. 228)

    He says that as a result:

    "The Community had become divided into two rival camps. One was endeavouring to convince the rank and file that the proper successor of the Promised Messiah appointed by the Promised Messiah himself was the Sadr Anjuman. The other opposed this view and held to the terms of their Bai‘at." (p. 230)

    This was the position seven months after the death of the Promised Messiah.


  5. November 28th, 2013 at 7:06 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    @Lutf sahib:

    You're denying your Qadiani belief as propagated by your QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and reported by Nadeem F. Piracha: "The Qadianis claimed that Mirza was a prophet, and accused all Muslims who did not accept him as being non-Muslims". Just read the following link and then stand in front of a mirror and repeat your statment "The above opinion is based on the false allegations raised by the Anti-Ahmadiyya clergy ": http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/takfir1.htm

    Dear Lahore Ahmadiyya Movment members: This thread and comments by me are NOT to the tell the truth to Mahmudis (Blind followers of QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad) who feel no shame in making blatant lies to defend their QK2. Rather these comments are for education of LAM members. You people can see how easily a low level Mahmudi can turn on a dime. This only points to unethical and immoral character of their spirital father (and in some cases their biological father, even they may not know) Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.

     


  6. Dear Zahid Aziz Sahib,

    The Lahore group remained quiet as the Khalifa at that time was also the president of the Anjuman. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I delivered a sermon in which he said that Khilafat is not a bottle of soda bought from a local shop. Khalifa is made by Allah and and not the Anjuman. He put the Anjuman in its place and if they kept on dissenting, their status will be that of Kharijites.

    Anjuman members begged for Khalifatul Masih's pardon in public at the mosque.

    So, Jamaat was not split under Khalifatul Mashi I. i.e., all had taken bai'at at the hand of a Khalifa. If that oath had no meaning then you must be right.

     

    wassalam,


  7. Dear Mr Lutf: Some months after the event you refer to ("Anjuman members begged for Khalifatul Masih's pardon in public"), Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din said in an Eid-ul-Fitr khutba:

    “In the writing of Hazrat sahib [i.e. the Promised Messiah] there is a point of deep knowledge which I will explain to you fully. He left it up to God as to who was going to be the khalifa. On the other hand, he said to fourteen men: You are collectively the Khalifat-ul-Masih, your decisions are final and binding, and the government authorities too consider them as absolute. Then all those fourteen men became united in taking the bai‘at (pledge) at the hand of one man, accepting him as their khalifa, and thus you were united. And then not only fourteen, but the whole community agreed upon my khilafat.

    “… I have read Al-Wasiyya very thoroughly. It is indeed true that he has made fourteen men the Khalifat-ul-Masih, and written that their decision arrived at by majority opinion is final and binding. Now observe that these God-fearing men, whom Hazrat sahib chose for his khilafat, have by their righteous opinion, by their unanimous opinion, appointed one man as their Khalifa and Amir." (Badr, 21 October 1909, p. 11, col. 1)

    Fourteen men collectively the Khalifat-ul-Masih, he says!

    When Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din became khalifa, he wrote an article (Wafat-i Masih-i Mauood) in which he twice declared it "a miracle of the spiritual progress of the Ahmadiyya community" that, despite the existence of several relatives of the Promised Messiah ("four sons, one grandson, one son-in-law and father-in-law"), the community accepted bai`at of an unrelated person "who is neither mughal, nor Turk, nor related to the extent that Abu Bakr was related to the Holy Prophet by virtue of being Quraish".

    That, then, was the miracle and sign of spiritual advancement of the community, to choose an unrelated person as khalifa!


  8. November 29th, 2013 at 7:54 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Shaitan (Satan) is made by Allah.

    Lutf sahib,

    You quote Hazrat Khalifa-tul-Masih Maulana Noor-ud-Din "Khalifa is made by Allah".

    Yes, Khalifa of Mamur-min-Allah is made by Allah SWT. Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement members have NO problem with that. We accept that. Hazrat Abu Bakr Saddiq RA was made Khalifa-tul-Rasool by Allah SWT. The way Allah did it by making him FIRST adult male to do ba'it of Rasool Allah SAWS. Similarly, Hazrat Noor-ud-Din RTA was made Khalifa-tul-Masih by Allah SWT. The way Allah did it by making him FIRST adult male to do ba'it of Mujjaddid Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

    On the other hand if you claim that your Qadiani Khalifa 2,3,4,5 are made by Allah, then we Lahori Ahmadis also AGREE with that. As Allah SWT has made SHAITAN, IBLIS, or HINDU's HANUMAN MONKEY god, similarly Allah has made QK2,3,4,5. :)

     


  9. A hereditary monarch, like the Queen of England, is appointed to that position by Allah because the birth of a human being in a certain family, and being the first-born, is not in any human's control. No human hand was involved in Elizabeth becoming Queen, except that the people of the country accepted the monarchial system.

    The Queen is of course a figure head, with no power that she can exercise as an individual over the country. It seems that Mirza Masroor Ahmad is also only a figure head and symbol of the Qadiani khilafat system. There are power brokers behind him who control him and tell him what to do, just like the British cabinet tells the Queen what to say and do. The Queen reads speeches written by the government. Mirza Masroor Ahmad reads khutbahs written by the controlling powers behind the throne.

    Of course, there are dissimilarities. The Queen is humble, intelligent, self-sacrificing for the country, a very good speaker, and does not require blind obedience from her subjects.


  10. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I was explaining the role of Ijma of the electoral college at the time of his election which was Sadr Anjuman. He said that it was God who made him Khalifa and 'tied the 14 members of the anjuman' together to take baiat on his hands.

    Now, if you are saying that the 14 members were also chosen by God to be the Khalifa along with Khalifatul Masih then it is indeed an absurd idea.

    Also, I find it strange that Hazrat Umar, Usman and Ali were not Khulafa made by Allah according to Lahore party's beliefs.

    One Khalifa follows another and that is how rightfuly guidede successorship continues. Electoral college of Ahmadiyya Jamaat today has hundreds of members, including the Sadr Anjuman which is represented by the key office holders in Rabwah and Qadian. So now all these members are in spirit the same Khalifatul Masih, who choose the next khalifa. The Nazir-e-Ala assumes the adminsitrative responsibility of the Jamaat until the next khalifa is chosen and the spiritual leadership of Jamaat rests with the whole electoral college until they agree on the next Khalifa.

    It indeed another sign of the truthfulness of Khalifatul Masih II that not only himself but all his successors continued to lead the Jamaat of Promised Messiah (as) from strength to strength.


  11. November 30th, 2013 at 6:50 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Hazrat Umar, Usman, and Ali were NOT Khalifa-tul-Rasool

    @Lutf sahib:

    Please read my posts in  following link. You will find out why Hazrat Umar, Usman, and Ali were NOT Khalifa-tul-Rasool.

    The word Khaifa-tul-Masih used by Qadiani Khalifa 2, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad, QK4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad, and QK5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad is an ABSOLUTE FRAUD, TOTAL CONCOCTION, NEOLOGISM, AND LIE. Found only in dictionary and language of Mahmudis (i.e. Blind followers of QK2).

    FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

    Maulana Abdul Manan Omar, (author of Arabic-English Dictionary of Holy Quran) [son of Khalifa-tul-Masih Maulana Noor-ud-Din] EXPLAINED TO ME PERSONALLY that when word 'Awal' (the first) is used with someone does NOT mean a second has to come. Use of word 'Awal' does NOT imply 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th….

    Read the link:

    Meaning of the title 'Khalifa'

    http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2009/08/12/menaing-of-title-khalifa/


  12. Dear Mr Lutf: It was more than eleven years after becoming khalifa that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad made a speech in 1925 entitled 'A new system of administration for the Ahmadiyya Jamaat', which is online at your Jamaat's website at this link.

    Please refer to pages 132-133 (pages 7 to 8 of the pdf file). This is what he said:

    “The founding principle of the Council of Trustees (Majlis-i Mu‘timidin) did not include the existence of the khalifa of the time, which is the very fundamental issue in Islam. A resolution has been passed during the second khilafat to the effect that the Council must accept whatever the khalifa says. But this is not a matter of principle. What it means is that a body of members says that it would do so. However, the body which is entitled to say this, can also say that it shall not do so. For, the Anjuman which can pass the resolution that it shall obey the khalifa in everything, if ten years later it says that it shall not obey him, it is entitled to do so according to the rules of the Anjuman. Or if the Anjuman says that it will obey this khalifa in everything but will not obey another one, it has the right to do so according to its rules, as happened in the time of the first khalifa.”

    He admits that the rules of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya, as created in the Promised Messiah's time, contained no mention of a khalifa, and therefore he got a resolution passed after becoming khalifa that this body must obey him (i.e. obey the second khalifa). Now he is worried that that body still has the power to change that resolution!

    He goes on to say:

    "For the sake of the khilafat we had to make an unparalleled sacrifice. And that was that we sacrificed for its sake the old followers of the Promised Messiah, those who were called his friends, those who had a very close relationship with him. …

    If even after so much sacrifice the movement still remains insecure, that is, it is at the mercy of a few men who can, if they so wish, allow the system of khilafat to continue in existence, and if they do not so wish, it cannot remain in existence, this cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. Because the institution of khilafat was not included in the basic principles of the Jama‘at, the movement lives in the constant danger which can turn pledged members into non-pledged members, and by the stroke of the pen of ten or eleven men Qadian can at once become Lahore. Therefore, the works of the Jama‘at relating to propagation and training cannot be entrusted to such an Anjuman, even though that Anjuman may consist of pledged members, and even though they may be men of the highest sincerity.”

    He is afraid ("constant danger") of his own pledged members on the Anjuman's board overturning their previous resolution so that "by the stroke of the pen of ten or eleven men Qadian can at once become Lahore".

    But how would Qadian become Lahore? Of course they were not going to pass a resolution that Maulana Muhammad Ali is now our khalifa. Qadian would become Lahore if the Anjuman in Qadian asserted its supremacy that it possessed since its creation in the Promised Messiah's time.

    This khilafat system is supposed to have been established by God, but the khalifa says that it is "at the mercy of a few men who can, if they so wish, allow the system of khilafat to continue in existence" and he fears the danger that khilafat could be destroyed by a body of ten or eleven men!

    A khalifa appointed by God wouldn't be afraid of his opponents removing him. But Mirza Mahmud Ahmad is afraid of his own pledged members and "even though they may be men of the highest sincerity" they cannot be trusted. This is the mentality of absolute autocrats, that they cannot trust even their most trusted ones.


  13. Dear Zahid Aziz Sahib,

    What is it different between what KM2 said and what KM1 had said so forcefully in the mosque of Promised Messiah (as). Anjuman may have the right to choose the Khalifa as an electoral college, but they cannot go against his 'Maroof' decisions after taking the ba'at.

    Jamaat has only formalized the instructions left by the Promised Messiah (as). Please note that being the supreme head of the Jamaat during his lifetime, the need of an 'Anjuman' arose to fulfill the administrative requirements of the Jamaat and to serve as a legal representative for him for any reason which may arise.

    And why did the Holy Prophet (saw) prophecize

    a. The four khualfa that would follow him.

    b. The end of Khilafat-e-Rashida and the start of Mulooks and tyrants.

    c. The re-advent of Khilafat on the percepts of Nabuwwat

    If the first four Khulafa were not Khalifatur Rusool, then only one Khalifa should have been prophecized. Also, why do the majority of muslims adhere to the interpretations made by Hadhrat Umar r.a.  (i.e., Taraveeh) or Usman r.a (compilation of the Quran) if they had no authority to act as a spiritual successor of the Prophet (saw) himself.

    And why would RusoolAllah saw call the leadership immediately following him as Khilafat (spanning all four Rashidoun). If your or Abdul Manan Umar sahib's understanding is correct, then as per the Hadith of Holy Prophet (saw), Khilafat ended after Abu Bakr r.a. and those who followed him were Mulooks (Nauzobillah).

    And may I ask whether anyone in Lahore Jamaat is still accepting Ba'ait in the name of Promised Messiah (as). i.e, with the 10 conditions of Bai'at?

     


  14. Dear Mr Lutf, I am happy to allow blog readers to see for themselves whether you have dealt with the points raised in my last comment regarding the admissions made by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself about the powers of the Anjuman that it had since its creation and how it still possessed them in 1925, and that this made it a danger to his khilafat.

    Regarding the Khilafat-i Rashida after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the Promised Messiah has written about it in detail in his book Shahadat-ul-Quran, which I translated into English about 25 years ago. In it he has described his own coming as the coming of a khalifa of the Holy Prophet. Therefore heads of the Ahmadiyya Movement cannot be khalifas of the Holy Prophet Muhammad because the Promised Messiah himself was a khalifa of the Holy Prophet. And if you say that the Promised Messiah established another khilafat after him, just like the Holy Prophet did, then you are saying that the khilafat of the Holy Prophet Muhammad terminated after 4 khalifas, and its place has now been taken by the khilafat of the prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad which is eternal (and has already exceeded the length of the Holy Prophet's khilafat by many years).

    The hadith you have referred to begins by saying that prophethood will come to an end, and that is mentioned before your points a, b, and c. So no prophet will come after whom the khilafat of (c) will come into existence. In the book of Hadith called Mishkat, after quoting this hadith, it is stated by one of the narrators: "when Umar ibn Abdul Aziz came to power, I sent him this hadith in writing to remind him of it and I said I hope you are the Amir-ul-Mo'mineen after the kings and tyrants, he was happy and liked this". So this hadith was applied at the turn of the first century Hijrah to Umar ibn Abdul Aziz who is regarded as the first mujaddid. And Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself considered the chain of mujaddids to be a continuation of the khilafat of the Holy Prophet.

    As to why Muslims adhere to the interpretations and judgments of Hazrat Umar and Usman, it is because of their position as sahaba of the Holy Prophet. For the same reason, Muslims adhere to the interpretations and judgments of, for example, Ibn Abbas and Hazrat Aishah. Hazrat Aishah once even corrected a religious view expressed by Hazrat Umar. On one famous occasion, even an ordinary woman in a crowd openly corrected a religious judgment of Hazrat Umar, and Hazrat Umar acknowledged his error. I wonder if there was ever a similar incident involving a khalifa of the Qadiani Jamaat.

    To your final question, whether anyone in our Jamaat is still taking people into the bai'at of the Promised Messiah, the answer is simply, Yes. For a start, whoever is the head of our Movement is entitled to take people into the bai'at. Moreover, bearing in mind the instruction in Al-Wasiyyat that any forty Ahmadis may choose someone to administer the bai'at, we have always had several persons entitled to bring people into the bai'at of the Promised Messiah if our head is not present to do it.

    Finally, I see that my response has become quite lengthy, so I apologise to our readers for that.


  15. December 2nd, 2013 at 8:40 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    @Lutf Sahib

    1- Lahori-Ahmadis have NO problem if you call your QK2, QK3, QK4, QK5 as your "Khalifa". Word Khalifa has MANY MEANINGS such as 'Head of State' or 'Nai (Barbar)'. Our problem with Qadianis is that they call QK2, 3,4, 5 as "Khalifa-Tul-Masih 2,3,4,5". We will have NO problem if you call your QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as 'Khalifa-tul-Noor-ud-Din' and QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad as 'Khalifa-tul-Mirza Mahmud Ahmad' etc.

    2-As regard adhering to interpertation of some one, is NOT important. Majority of Pakistani Muslims ADHERE TO ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO INTERPERTATION THAT QADIANIS LIKE YOU ARE KAFIR AND PAKAY KAFIR AND WAJAB-UL-QATAL. Why don't you accept that ZAB was a "spiritual" Person????


  16. Zahid Aziz  and Rashid Jahangiri Sahib,

    In your efforts to justify your elder's dissention against Khilafat, you are trying to re-interpret already established fundamentals of Islamic beliefs and history.

    If Khilfat was only a non-essential (administrative) office, then Uthman r.a. and Ali r.a. should have abandoned it to save so many thousands of lives. Kharijis should have been accomodated in a council of elders type of institution which was the Arab tradition. Muawiya r.a. should have been given a place inthis council with the option to lobby and push forward the Umayyid agenda as much as Banu Hashim's representatives had the right to push theirs.

    But we see that these companions of RusoolAllah (saw) defended their office of Khalifa and gave their lives for it. Did they die in vain?

    Being the successor of a Khalifa in the temporal sense is insignificant. We may have many hundreds of khulafa to come InshaAllah. What matters is that the Khalifa is elected by a group of righteous people and then this chose Khalifa fulfills his role as per the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) . God shows his support for the rightly guided caliph with progress and acceptance of prayers. This is what the Rashidoun Khulafa accomplished, and this is what Khulafa of Promised Messiah are accomplishing. Alhamdulillah

    Indeed there will be a time of decline which is also fortold, but not before Islam is fully established as the victorious faith as per the prophecies of Quran and hadith.


  17. Dear Mr Lutf: The Khulafa Rashideen regarded themselves as accountable and answerable to the Muslims, as well as to Allah. Any Muslim could openly raise objection to some act or belief of the khalifa as being not according to Islam, and the khalifa had to explain and clear his position. There are repeated incidents of this kind in Hazrat Umar's time for example. Throughout his khilafat he expressed fear of punishment by Allah, and when he was dying he expressed no certainty that he would go to paradise, but rather said that he hoped his wrong deeds were balanced out by his good deeds.

    Your Jamaat believes in dreams. Here are dreams of some sahaba who desired to see Hazrat Umar after his death. They saw these dreams some years after his death. They saw him perspiring heavily and asked, what is the matter? He told them: It is only now, after many years, that I have finished being questioned by Allah, and he added: "It was only the mercy of Allah which saved me, otherwise Umar would have been dishonoured by Allah". These dreams seen by several sahaba reflect the inner mind of Umar.

    So this is what is true khilafat: accountability and responsibility before man and God. Regrettably, your khilafat system is the exact opposite of this.

    It is also to be noted that the Muslim world made most of its great progress in history, whether spiritually, materially, or intellectually, when there were no "blessings of khilafat". It was after Khilafat-i Rashida that Muslim fuqaha created the four great schools of jurisprudence, the compilers of Hadith did all their work, Muslims went across North Africa to Spain, they conquered parts of India, Islam spread through Sufis in India, South East Asia and West Africa, Muslim scientists made their great contributions, the Ottomon empire reached near Vienna, countless saints and philosophers appeared, such as Ghazali, Ibn Khaldun, Shah Waliullah, etc. etc.

    We cannot understand how Muslims after the time of Hazrat Ali, when so many sahaba were alive, were so bad that Allah punished them by taking away the blessings of khilafat due to their "misdeeds" (nauzobillah), and yet Qadiani Jamaat members of the modern times are so righteous that as a reward they are blessed with khilafat!


  18. December 4th, 2013 at 5:59 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Khalifa or Cult Leader

    @Lutf sahib,

    My late father’s cousin sister’s son (i.e. my father’s nephew) was a ‘Mukhlas’ (Sincere) Qadiani-Ahmadi. He is buried in England in the same cemetery where your QK4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad is buried. His last name is as mine. He has three sons. MashAllah they are very successful professionals. So deceased was my second cousin.

    My late Qadiani-Ahmadi cousin and his sons were present in my father’s home in Islamabad, Pakistan at time of his death and Janaza (funeral) prayer. Janaza prayer was led by my first cousin (my father’s sister’s son). My deceased Qadiani-Ahmadi cousin’s son told me that my first cousin (who led my father’s funeral prayer) has offered prayers on numerous occasions behind his father (my late Qadiani-Ahmadi cousin).

    At time of Janaza prayer my Qadiani-Ahmadi cousin and his sons did NOT offer janaza prayer of my father. My Qadiani-Ahmadi cousin’s son gave me the explanation it BECAUSE OF ORDERS OF THEIR (QADIANI) KHALIFA.

    My late Qadiani-Ahmadi second cousin and his late brother (who converted to Islam in 1974) use to acknowledge support of my father in making their lives (as they had become orphans while they were little children).

    Lutf sahib questions for you: What kind of a person, other than a CULT LEADER WOULD GIVE ORDERS THAT WILL MAKE HIS FOLLOWERS BREAK FAMILY RELATIONS AND HURT THOSE RELATIVES WHO WERE THEIR BENEFACTOR??? Were any such stupid instructions given by Amir-al-momineen Hazart Umar, Usman or Ali??? You feel no shame in equating your immoral QK2, 3, 4…to companions of Rasool Allah SAWS. It is sad, but you Mahmudis deserve what Pakistani Muslims do to you Qadianis!!!


  19. Zahid Sahib,

    I do not believe that any Khulafa e Rashideen were accountable to man for any ma'roof decision that they had made. i.e., There have been instances where they were questioned about details, but at no point did they overturn a ma'roof decision because of public pressure. For example, there was a difference of opinion on the Ridda wars during Abu Bakr's r.a., time, but Khalifa's decision stood despite the opposition from some very senior sahaba. Arabs at that time were still learning the basics of Islam, so a few instances of people interrupting the khalifa during a sermon can't be taken as normal practice. Islam teaches obedience, not dissent.

    Jahangiri sahib,

    To my knowledge, we cannot follow mukaffirs and mukazzibs in Salat. Lahore Jamaat is neither so I would have joined the Janaza prayer if I was present. I will definitely enquire about the beliefs of the Imam (in case he was a not even a Lahori Ahmadi) before joining that congregation.

     I am not sure what was the source of your relation's knowledge on this matter.


  20. Dear Mr Lutf: I was speaking about "some act or belief of the khalifa as being not according to Islam, and the khalifa having to explain and clear his position". We are not talking about administrative matters here. In those matters we all, in this world, are bound by decisions and laws which we believe to be wrong (e.g. made by governments or courts). I was talking about some act or belief of a khalifa which is against Islam, and in our case that un-Islamic belief is to call other Muslims as kafir and excluded from the pale of Islam.

    When there was cloth rationing during the time of Hazrat Umar, and he was seen wearing a robe which took more cloth than one man's ration, he was questioned about this while giving a khutba, as to how he got more than his due share. He produced his son as witness that he had given his own ration to his father as his father was very tall. And Umar said he was happy to find that there were such Muslims who questioned him in this way.

    Does the concept that the khalifa is appointed by God mean that it is impossible for the khalifa to commit any act which is contrary to Islam?


  21. December 5th, 2013 at 4:56 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    @Lutf sahib,

    Imam who led my father's funeral prayer was NOT a Lahori-Ahmadi.

    Lahori-Ahmadis and Sunni Muslims offered Funeral Prayer of my late father behind that Imam.

    My late Qadiani-Ahmadi second cousin was A PROMINENT QADIANI-AHMADI and held offices. His sons are staunch Qadiani-Ahmadis.

    Lutf sahib, your approach is of typical pakistani apologist, who when find themselves in ackward situation,  will say, "Pakistani Muslims who commit terrorist activities do not have knowledge of Islam"


  22. December 6th, 2013 at 5:17 am
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

  23. Zahid Aziz Sahib, If Khalifa is made by God, then it is He who will bring a quick end to his tenure. I refer you back to numerous sermons delivered by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I where he repeatedly asked any dissenters to pray for his death if they thought he wasn't fit for the job.

    Jahangiri sahib, I am sure you have these family members associated with Jamaat, but in the case of your father's funeral, I agree with them. As per the clear instructions from Promised Messiah (as), we do not pray behind a non-Ahmadi Imam.


  24. Dear Mr Lutf: I don't wish to hurt your feelings but from your comment addressed to me, could one say that if a khalifa becomes permanently mentally unfit to function even as a normal human being, let alone conducting the office of khalifa, then God has removed him from khilafat even while physically alive? Your Jamaat acknowledges, and its members saw with their own eyes, that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad sahib marhoom was in this terrible state for the last eight years of his life.


  25. Zahid Aziz Sahib,

    You have actually hurt my feelings by putting forward unsubstanitated claims about my beloved Imam. Someone can suffer from illness but still perform duties of leadership. And that illenss was a result of an assassinantion attempt which had caused long term health issues. But were those health issues preventing the Khalifa from making decisions regarding his Jamaat? Were those years of illness a time of decline for his Jamaat or progress? Did the people who had taking his bai'at still connected with him through personal meetings and letters or not? In short, Was the Khalifa operative and functional despite his poor health? And also, as is the case with all human beings, illness causes death and sometimes such illnesses can be of a long duration. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I also suffered a chronic illness before he passed away.

     At other places, this website also puts forth ro supports very vile and slanderous accusations which do not behove a person or organization claiming to follow Islam; especially the Islam taught by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as).

    Put some trust in Allah and pray that those who in your view have gone against the wishes of Promised Messiah (as) be destroyed and humiliated. You are clutching at straws when you start basing your arguments on speculations rather than firm evidence.

    wassalam,

     


  26. Dear Mr Lutf: I hope you saw the very recent posts on this blog under the link:

    http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2013/12/04/zafrullah-khans-book-ahmadiyyat-the-renaissance-of-islam/

    These posts quote sources of your own Jamaat. What you are calling as my claims are substantiated by these sources.

    And what exactly is hurtful about my statement "if a khalifa becomes permanently mentally unfit to function even as a normal human being"? Many people, including righteous ones, can become afflicted by such a condition, but as they don't claim to be "appointed by God" the question doesn't arise that God has removed them from performing a mission assigned by Him.

    As to your questions ending with: "In short, Was the Khalifa operative and functional despite his poor health?", I think your own Jamaat can provide the answer and you will find that he was not operative and functional as khalifa in any aspect.

    Even in the last few days of his life, Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din was listening almost daily to the notes of the English translation of the Quran read out to him by Maulana Muhammad Ali and he was making suggestions and giving guidance, a fact mentioned by Maulana Muhammad Ali in his Preface to that commentary in acknowledgements:

    "There is one more person whose name I must mention in this connection, the late Maulawi Hakim Nur al-Din, who in his last long illness patiently went through much the greater part of the explanatory notes and made many valuable suggestions. To him, indeed, the Muslim world owes a deep debt of gratitude as the leader of the new turn given to the exposition of the Holy Qur’an. He has done his work and passed away silently, but it is a fact that he spent the whole of his life in studying the Holy Qur’an, and must be ranked with the greatest expositors of the Holy Book."

    Hazrat Maulana was also giving spiritual guidance to the community till his very last days.

    I remember reading that your Jamaat likened this attempted assassination to the stabbing of Hazrat Umar. Hazrat Umar, in the days after being stabbed, gave instructions about the running of the government after him, and he also said many inspiring things in that condition which provide us with noble lessons.


  27. December 26th, 2013 at 8:40 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Sunni Debater POUNDS Qadiani “Scholar” Ansar Raza.
    Recently a debate is held between Qadiani Missionary “scholar” Ansar Raza and Sunni debater Anwar Saddat in Canada. It is organized by official Qadiani Organization in Canada. In debate Ansar Raza calls himself “scholar”. Whereas Anwar Saddat categorically denies being scholar of Islam.  But he very easily POUNDS and RIDICULES “scholar” Ansar Raza using LAM literature. It is obvious Sunni debater took advantage of LAM literature available on its websites and from writings of Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib.

    For over a year in my emails I have been asking Qadiani Missionary “scholar” Ansar Raza to debate with me on this host LAM blog, but he has been RUNNING AWAY. The debate between him and Sunni debater exposes reason for Ansar Raza FLIGHT.

    It is obvious Ansar Raza was NOT expecting his opponent Sunni debater in presence of live audience will POUND him using LAM literature. Whereas he expects on this LAM blog LAM posters will pound him using LAM literature.

    Enjoy POUNDING of Qadiani Missionary “scholar” Ansar Raza on following TWO links:
    Link 1: Watch at 1:13:00
    http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1970046/events/2627938/videos/37670974
    Link 2: Watch at 0:05:00
    http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1970046/events/2627938/videos/37676720


  28. March 31st, 2014 at 5:33 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Categorical and Absolute Lie in QeRN Academy article.

    QeRN academy which posts anti-HMGA articles, and is most probably run by (apparently) former Qadiani Akbar Chaudhry. Wrote an article as about Nadeem Paracha. Link to Qern article is at the bottom. I wrote a reply about LIE in that article. I posted it in ahmedi.org  For record I am copy pasting my post:

    An article is posted on QeRn Academy website 'Nadeem Paracha Breaks Through on Qadianism'.

    I don't know who wrote the article. But my hunch is Akbar Chaudhry is author. If he denies it, I will accept it only as a COURTESY.

    In a paragraph 3rd from the last, author writes: "A little-known ordinance was passed in 1980 that did not specifically name the Ahmadis or Qadianis and was generally worded to disallow the usage of certain reserved epithets – sahaba (companions of the Prophet (saw)),  umm-ul-mu’mineen (mother of believers, as in wife of the Prophet (saw)) etc.  Both the Qadiani and Lahori Ahmadiyya use some of these epithets for companions, wives etc. of their founders and leaders. " Bolding is mine.

    It is true that Qadianis will use epithets for companions, wives of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, MUJJADDID OF 14TH ISLAMIC CENTURY. But it is LIE that Lahore Ahmadiyya uses such words for HMGA sahib, his companions, wives or for elders of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movment.

    By clubbing Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (aka Lahori Ahmadiyya/ Lahori Ahmadi/ Lahori Group) with Qadianis and Qadianism, author is CATEGORICALLY AND ABSOLUTELY LYING. Author also loses his credibility and article which otherwise has many true facts about Qadianis and Qadianism. By writing such a blunt lie author is proving that there is NO DIFFERENCE between him and Mahmudis. NOTE: MAHMUDIS ARE EXTREME FORM OF QADIANIS. Mahmudis will go to any extent to LIE, commit FRAUD, and even MURDER opponents to protect their Qadiani Khalifas 2,3,4,5.

    [I will copy paste this post on Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement blog]

    http://www.qern.org/en/nadeem-paracha-breaks-through-on-qadianism/


  29. March 31st, 2014 at 9:01 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Another thing these opponents will not tell you is that Maulana Nur-ud-Din often called Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as "Mirza sahib" or even just "Mirza". And this was during as well as after the life of Hazrat Mirza sahib.

    As to "reserved epithets", no one ever mentions sall-allahu `alai-hi wa sallam ("may the blessings of Allah be upon him, and peace") in this connection. In our younger days, this is what we used to hear after the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, but in the past 20 to 25 years it is always read on Pakistani TV channels as sall-allahu `alai-hi wa aali-hi wa sallam: "may the blessing of Allah be on him and his progeny…"

    So who is this aal or progeny? Are any persons living today included in progeny? Perhaps Akber Choudhry or some follower of his fall in this category. 


  30. April 1st, 2014 at 9:36 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Either Akber Choudhry or one of his unthinking blind votaries has sent the usual rude post which is par for the course for them. He says in it that Lahoris have used "(as)" after the name of Hazrat Mirza sahib. But "(as)" or `alai-hi salam is not one of the epithets prohibited in the Pakistan misuse of epithets ordinance! And how could they prohibit it when it is commonly used after the name of Imam Mahdi by those who expect his coming!

    As to epithets restricted to the companions of the Holy Prophet, please visit this link to the Tazkiyah Academy online courses.

    It is headed: "Course Description: Classical texts in Islamic Spirituality by Imam Ghazali (ra) and Imam Rabbani Mujaddid Alfithani (ra)".

    What could "(ra)" stand for? Well, read further on:

    "Imam Rabbani Mujaddid Alfithani (ra) is widely believed to be the Reviver of the second millennium of Muslim history. A direct descendant of Hazrat Umar Ibne Khattab (ra), …"

    So, whatever "(ra)" was Hazrat Umar, the same "(ra)" is applied here to Mujaddid Alif Thani.


  31. April 2nd, 2014 at 4:54 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Maulana Noor-ud-Din addressed HMGA as 'Mirza Ji'

    Few years ago i read portion of Maulana Noor-ud-Din sahib book 'Fasal-ul-Khitab'. He addressed HMGA as 'Mirza Ji'.

    According to Chaudhry Abdul Hameed  aka 'Dadda sahib' his daddi (paternal grandmother) told him in Qadian followers of HMGA use to address him as 'Mirza sahib' and Maulana Noor-ud-Din sahib as 'Hakim sahib' in their lives.


Leave a Reply