“The True Succession”: Founding of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement a century ago
The month of March 2014 marks the centenary of the beginning of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore, which came about in March 1914 although this Anjuman formally came into existence at the beginning of May 1914.
Consisting to a large extent of new research, which has unearthed material that was forgotten or lying buried in archives, I have completed a book of almost 150 pages bearing the title The True Succession. The title indicates the theme and thesis of the book, namely, that the AAIIL represents the true succession to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din and the continuation of their real mission.
I thank Allah the Most High for enabling me to complete this book on time and provide a definitive and substantiated record of how and why the AAIIL came into being. The burden of debt we owe to the Lahore Ahmadiyya pioneers cannot be repaid, but I hope this book counts as a minisicule recognition of it.
From Ikram:
“The True Succession” by Dr. Zahid Aziz.
This book is a thirst-quenching account of facts as they unfolded in the history of Ahmadiyya Movement, and as evidenced in published accounts in various newspapers, journal and books of the time. It is an evidence based exposé which fully establishes what is summarized on its back cover:
The Lahore Ahmadiyya is a direct continuation of the Ahmadiyya Movement as founded by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (d. 1908) and as led afterwards by his successor Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din (d. 1914). It seeks to preserve the beliefs, mission and goals of this Movement as set down by these two guiding lights.
Dr. Zahid Aziz,may Allah bless his ever present efforts, proves with clear arguments, contrary to general assumptions, that it is the majority section, the Qadianis, who are on the fringe of what Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib stood for. Whereas, the minority, the Lahoris, are factually the mainstream of this movement in their faith, beliefs and efforts. I would further say that the author does not only prove by his deductions, but the way he puts the quoted facts in front of the reader, the facts themselves gel together into a powerful argument that brings to light the truth of the matter.
As a corollary, it saddens the reader that the damage this fringe majority inflicted on the movement by one simple, but critical shortcoming of theirs. It was their blind fellowship of a person who happened to be the son of the Promised Messiah, who not only drowned himself like Noah’s son in self-conceited illogic, but also those who continue to profess his dogmas. These dogmas did not stand the test of time and with every next challenge from within or outside their group, they have crumbled like a dry cookie with every jolt of the pan.
This book lightens the burden for present mainstream minority, the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. It establishes a direct connection in the Ahmadiyya Movement of a straight line from Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to Hazrat Nur-ud-din to Maulana Muhammad Ali & Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din and the Lahoris members of the present, without any intervening distraction of Rabwah Khalifas or their dogmas in between.
The discussion leaves the bottom line with Qadianis which is actually a solution for their ignominy. After having retracted their one false claim after another, the Qadianis are left with one last hindrance before they too will line up with intentions of this Jamaat as established by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib. The final knot that remains around their necks and souls is that they have to reestablish the independence of Sadr-Anjuman as envisioned by the Promised Messiah. Once they undo this knot, their Jamaat will be what was under Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din. Thereafter, they may continue to have their Khandan-e-Khilafat as a spiritual lineage, while the body of their Jamaat will be then freed up in service of Islam and not of some Khalifa that they are mentally in servitude of now.
From Omar:
A biography of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, published in 2012 by the Qadiani Jamaat and authored by Mujeebur Rahman, bears the title Fazle-e-Umar, which is purported to be a title given due to his supposed “spiritual affinity” (p. 338) to Hazrat Umar. This is the only English biography I am aware of. The book is divided into three parts and stated to be mostly based upon the Urdu biography Swaneh Fazle Umar. The seal of approval and authenticity has been given to it by Mirza Masroor Ahmad by way of a letter as found in one of the first few pages of the book. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad is lauded as “the greatest genius of the 20th century” (p. 3) and “a man of phenomenal intelligence and memory” (p. 3) that “wrote over 200 books and pamphlets” (p. 263), and had a “deep encyclopaedic intrinsic spiritual knowledge and understanding of the Holy Qur’an,” (p. 267) while “his magnum opus was a detailed commentary on the Holy Qur’an which he called Tafseer Kabeer (The Great Commentary)” (p. 236). Also, boldly it is said that “the truth of the claim of the Promised Messiah depended on the long and successful life of Hadhrat Sahibzada Sahib” (p. 41) as he is purported to be the Promised Son.
The book contains embellishing stories of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s so called literary and spiritual greatness, success on an international stage in the political sphere of Muslim affairs, lies about his so-called revelations and true dreams and visions, flagrant lies about the character the relationship between Maulana Nur-ud-Din and his students Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din and Maulana Muhammad Ali whom are referred to as dissentients and insidious lies about their wanting to sabotage the so-called institution of khilafat that was hailed to be the primary cause of the Split without ever once mentioning the real causes. It also subtlety speaks of the Promised Messiah of being prophet since the institution of Qadiani khilafat rests on that erroneous precept. Further it is alleged that there was a strategy in place by Maulana Muhammad Al and Khwaja Kamal-ul-Din to appease the non-Ahmadi Muslim masses by not mentioning the claims of the Promised Messiah.
For example, a few extracts from the Fazle-Umar regarding this absurd notion of trying to appease non-Ahmadi Muslims are as follows:
“The main effort of the dissentients [i.e. Lahoris] was therefore directed towards winning popularity among the orthodox Muslims through propagating the philosophy of Islamic values as expounded by the Promised Messiah [as] without mentioning his name, and gradually toning down the differences of doctrine, teaching and practice that distinguished Ahmadis from non-Ahmadi Muslims. This formula would not only make them popular with the orthodox Muslims but would also put them in the forefront of all Islamic movements and win them credit for whatever progress was achieved by Islam and the Muslims. It would take them some time to discover how sadly mistaken they had been” (p. 125).
“Khawaja Kamal Uddin had cast a spell over a large portion of the Community with his peculiar method of preaching that omitted mentioning the distinctive claims of the Promised Messiah [as]. Many felt it was necessary to copy his method to gain success. Even those who mistrusted this approach were undergoing a strange probation. On the one hand they knew that if they persisted in this policy the Movement would soon come to an end. On the other hand, after the success of Khawaja Kamal Uddin, they felt afraid that people would refuse to attend any lectures bearing on the distinctive claims of the Promised Messiah [as], or if they attended, the numbers would be so small, giving the rival party ground for claiming theirs was the right method.” (p. 129)
To answer this, I can say no better than what Dr. Zahid Aziz has written in his book, The True Succession: Founding of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement:
“It is often alleged that the Lahore Ahmadiyya founding members wanted to modify the original creed of the Ahmadiyya Movement to make it accord more with mainstream Muslim beliefs. If that were true, they would not have continued to retain and preach the key Ahmadiyya belief that Jesus is dead and the Messiah promised to arise among the Muslims is Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad; they would not have created an organization bearing the name Ahmadiyya which would admit members to its fold by means of the same pledge of allegiance (bai‘at) to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad which he had himself instituted; nor would they have adopted for this organization the same objectives which he had set for the Ahmadiyya Movement. In fact, as we show in this book, they continued the same work from Lahore in 1914 which they had been doing since they joined the Movement in the lifetime of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
There have been several phases of severe opposition to the Ahmadiyya Movement in its homeland, directed by the so-called orthodox Muslim religious leaders, in particular in 1932–36, 1953 and 1974. These were the occasions, rather than 1914, on which the Lahore Ahmadiyya Anjuman would have earned the greatest approval of the general Muslims by amending its beliefs to become closer to them. However, it remained resolutely loyal to the beliefs that it had always proclaimed, and did not move from them in the least, even under the most intense and hostile pressure and scrutiny.
Contrast this with the Qadiani Jama‘at of the Ahmadiyya Movement led by their khalifas. Whenever it has been subjected to such pressure, in situations where mainstream Muslims hold the reins of power, it has been backtracking on its doctrines and interpretations of the teachings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to bring them closer to the Lahore point of view” (pp. 2-3).
From Zahid Aziz:
The Qadiani Jamaat was always accusing LAM of trying to please other Muslims so that they may be regarded as Muslim by them. But in 1974 their leadership appeared before the National Assembly of Pakistan so that they could be declared as Muslims by them! Didn't Khalifas 2 and 3 go bowing before the Muslim authorities in Pakistan, in 1954 and 1974, pleading to be regarded as Muslims?
There was a time when they were actually only too happy to be called kafir by other Muslims because, according to them, it was proof that other Muslims also considered that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had claimed to be a prophet. So they argued that it is not only us Qadianis, but also our Muslim opponents who say that he claimed to be a prophet!
From Zahid Aziz:
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote a book shortly after becoming Khalifa, entitled Tuhfat-ul-Muluk which is addressed to the Muslim ruler of Hyderabad Deccan. He explains at the beginning that his motivation in writing this "epistle" (letter) is that he saw a dream in which "I was explaining to Your Highness all about this movement" (p. 3 of English version).
The Urdu book is at this link (pdf file, ~3 MB), and its English translation, done (it seems) at the same time as the Urdu book was published, is at this link (~13 MB).
On page 2, he writes:
"At the present time, God has, out of His sheer grace, appointed me to be the leader of this community and to be their second khalifa. … and I am not aware to which family God may choose to transfer this office after me."
Is this a Qadiani Jamaat belief, that the office of khilafat may go to a person of any family?
On page 36 he quotes the hadith about the coming of Mujaddids, in Arabic with English translation, and explains its meaning as being that there will come:
"reformers who will re-establish the faith, and through their means there will always be raised bodies of men who will safeguard the true meaning of the Holy Quran…"
In other words, Hazrat Mirza sahib was a Mujaddid who created a Movement.
On page 37-38 he writes about Islam that:
"not only does it believe in the possibility of revelation, but positively requires that the beginning of every century should see the appearance of an inspired reformer. Such was the promise of God vouchsafed to the Blessed Prophet (on whom be peace) and such shall always be the case of Islam."
On page 38 he goes on to say about the continuity of revelation:
"Up to now thousands of men in Islam have been graced with this privilege, and no age has passed wherein there has not been present among the Muslims some claimant of Divine revelation."
On page 41 there is a heading saying: "The Promised Reformer of the Present Age". Under it he writes:
"… it is established that Islam is a living faith and that it is incumbent that a reformer should appear in it at the commencement of every century, there being a promise made by God to that effect in the Holy Quran … Where is the reformer who has been raised by God at the commencement of the current century. In answer to this question let me convey to Your Highness the gladsome news that we too in this age through the mercy of God have not been deprived of this blessing and that God has out of His grace raised at the commencement of this century a mighty man who in his grandeur is superior to, and nobler than, all the reformers who have gone before. His name is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian."
In other words, Hazrat Mirza sahib is the Mujaddid-i Azam (The Greatest Mujaddid), which happens to be the title of the Lahore Ahmadi biography of him!
In this book of 85 pages, the mission of the Ahmadiyya Movement and the position of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is presented just as the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement would do it. There is no mention of any claim to prophethood by Hazrat Mirza sahib or mention of continuity of prophethood after the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Only the continuity of revelation is mentioned and it is stated that "actual events also testify that Islam has never been bare of such holy spirits who have attained the highest stages of spiritual development" (p. 39) . As to how many such persons there have been, it is said just before these words that: "If they are enumerated their number will pass from thousands to lacs." ("Lac" is one hundred thousand.)
Is Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in this whole book hiding his belief that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a prophet?
From Omar:
Thank you Dr. Zahid Aziz for presenting this valuable information!
The Promised Messiah and Maulana Nur-ud-Din had nothing but the very best to say about Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din and Maulana Muhammad Ali whom they regarded as righteous and sincere. How shameful it is then to read in the Qadiani publication (Fazle-Umar) in describing Maulana Muhammad Ali was one whom was of “an irritable temper and a sensitive skin” (p. 119) and as both as being “proud of their religious knowledge” such that it “grew to the point where…Mirza Mahmud Ahmad sahib’s marvelous scholastic and mental attainments, and the fame of his learning and excellence began to hurt them rather than please them.” (p. 37). And regarding Ta’limul Islam High School the publication states “the Lahore group had attracted the notice of the Community for their untiring energy and selfless devotion with which they had been managing the whole show. Being supported and encouraged in their plans they began to attach too much importance to themselves and their schemes. Hence, in the minds of the Lahore Group the fate of the Community was doomed when the Community elected Hadhrat Sahibzada Sahib as Khalifatul Masih II in 1914… They left Qadian but their hopes never materialized.” (p. 242)
Was it this so-called scholastic and mental attainment that led Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to pridefully declare that he is “not accountable to any human being” in his role as khalifa (Fazle-Umar, p. 106)? and declare 400 million Muslims of the time as being outside the fold of Islam in 1911 since according to him “as we believed the Promised Messiah to be one of the prophets of God, we could not possibly regard his deniers as Muslims” (The Truth about the Split, p. 146) though he would contradict this belief 40 plus years later in 1954 during the Munir enquiry (see True Succession, p. 125)? Maulana Muhammad Ali rightly declared at the time in March 13, 1914, “I could not accept a man as spiritual guide who calls Muslims as kafir…” (A Mighty Striving, sec. 2.3) and had the moral courage to later take an oath in the name of God that Hazrat Sahib was not a prophet.
It was the Promised Messiah himself who said of Maulana Muhammad Ali to be “a most excellent man as regards religion and good behaviour in all ways”; that such qualities “cannot be found by searching” that he had deep conviction that “he will prove to be so firm in righteousness and love of religion that he will set an example worthy to be followed by his peers.” It was, in fact, the Promised Messiah that said “God almighty has blessed his writing,” and appointed him to be the first and only editor of the Islamic magazine to the West, Review of Religions; he had so much faith and confidence in him that he mandated that anything to be published in any of the Ahmadiyya newspapers should be first shown to Maulana Muhammad Ali since “you will benefit by this, and also people will be saved from error; further he was appointed by the Promised Messiah as secretary to the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya (council of fourteen trustees responsible for the administrative and financial affairs of the Movement and propagation of Islam), described collectively as his “successor.”; it was Maulana Muhammad Ali that fulfilled his vision of writing an English commentary of the Quran to Western countries and at the direction of the Promised Messiah, he would go on to write the monumental work, Religion of Islam. [All quotes taken from article, 'Maulana Muhammad Ali in the eyes of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad' at http://ahmadiyya.org/m-ali/hmviews.htm ]
Maulana Muhammad Ali declared over and over again in the humblest of ways that the works he produced and the path that he was embarked upon was due to guidance and inspiration he received from the Promised Messiah and also from his teacher, Maulana Nur-ud-Din. For example, in his preface to his Urdu commentary he wrote, “If anyone benefits from my work and prays for me, he must also include these two righteous men [Promised Messiah and Maulana Nur-ud-Din] in his prayer. I am but dust; any fragrance anyone perceives in this work is the spirit breathed by these others.” (True Succession, p. 14).
Yet it was Mirza Mahmud Ahmad that declared the English commentary to the Holy Quran produced by Maulana Muhammad Ali to be ‘trash’ and I understand he would use quite provocative language towards Lahoris in general after he became khalifa.
And Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, known as ladla mureed or most beloved disciple of the Promised Messiah, had said he was proud not of his knowledge, but of fulfilling his duties towards the Promised Messiah in propagating the message of Islam: “In brief, I found rational arguments in the literature of the Mujaddid of the age. Based on this, I produced comprehensive literature in the English language which has today established Islam as dominant. Any observer will see that the writings of the Khwaja follow the same outlook as the writings of Mirza sahib. I have no reluctance in admitting this, and more than that I am proud that in this aspect I fulfilled my duty of discipleship.” (True Succession, pp. 12-13). Lastly, I may add Maulana Nur-ud-Din has forcefully defended Khwaja sahib, stating on October 17, 1913, even in one of his final Friday khutbas “those who spread mistrust about him are the hypocrites.” (True Succession, p. 94).
From Zahid Aziz:
The khutbas of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, in which he has defended Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, can be read on the Qadiani Jamaat website alislam.org in the book Khutbaat-e-Noor, his collected khutbas, available from this link. See pages 622, 631-632 of the printed book numbering or 635, 644-645 of the pdf file.
(Note: This book Khutbaat-e-Noor should not be confused with a similarly entitled book Khatabat-e-Noor, which is a collection of his speeches.)
From Bilal:
The Lahoris are wrong….the Qadianis didnt back peddle in 1953, they backpeddled in 1935. How could the Lahoris have not noticed? Spencer Lavan talks about this change in his famous book. Moreover, the Qadianis have recently published a book by Mahmud Ahmad from 1935 which explains as follows:
See page 9 and many other pages…
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Political-Solidarity-of-Islam.pdf
"Moreover, there is a great deal of difference betwreen our definition of Kufr and theirs. They understand by Kufr to mean the denial of Islam, which is the meaning we do not ascribe to this term when using it about the non-Ahmadis. Our view is that if a person conforms to the tenets and teachings of Islam to a given extent, he is entitled to be called a Muslim. But when he falls below even that point then although he may be called a Muslim, he cannot be regarded a perfect Muslim. We never allege on the basis of this definition that every Kafir is doomed to hell-fire for ever. We do not call even the Jews and the Christians to be Kafirs of that description. On the other hand, we believe, that every Hindu, Sikh or Christian or even an atheist will ultimately find the grace of God and finally God will say to him, "go and enter heaven". So there lies a vast difference between the two view-points. Under their definition of Kufr they consign a person to everlasting perdition. Spiritually it grinds to atoms the person to whom it applies. For him there is no hope, no salvation. But we call others Kafirs only technically. According to our definition of Kufr it is quite possible that a person who dies a Kafir may…." (p. 9)
From Zahid Aziz:
The Lahoris did notice! This book was a Friday khutba delivered by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad on 26th April 1935. An article appered in Paigham Sulh in its issue of 11th May 1935 by Maulana Umar-ud-Din Shimlavi commenting on this khutba. And in Paigham Sulh dated 15 May 1935 the Friday khutba of Maulana Muhammad Ali delivered on 3rd May 1935 (i.e. the next Friday after Mirza Mahmud Ahmad gave his khutba) is published responding to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's khutba.
Maulana Muhammad Ali also deals with Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's absurd claim on p. 11 that: "It was the late Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, who by his speeches and writings, at first, started this question of Kufr and Islam in our Community."
The second edition of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's book The Truth about the Split was published in 1938, in which he unambiguously declared other Muslims as kafir and even pakkay (full-fledged) kafir. He also wrote in it:
"The reason why in March 1911, I wrote an article on the subject of the Kufr of those who did not accept the Promised Messiahas, was that at that time some Ahmadis, under the influence of non-Ahmadis, had begun to write in some non-Ahmadi papers that there was no material difference between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis, both being Muslims. I was afraid lest this erroneous view should find currency in the Ahmadiyya Community." (p. 137)
"To this in fact was added the vexed question of the Kufr of non-Ahmadis.
It was at the time of this crisis — when, on the one hand, a section of the Community had already started upon a wrong track, and, on the other, non-Ahmadis, taking advantage of the vacillation on the part of some Ahmadis, had started attacking the Movement — that I wrote an elaborate article on the subject of the Kufr of non-Ahmadis." (p. 262)
Here is the clear statement that it was Mirza Mahmud Ahmad who started this controversy of kufr of other Muslims because of his fear that Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din and others like him were calling other Muslims as Muslims.
From Bilal:
Mr. Zahid Aziz….
Why did Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqi and other authors claim that in was the 1953 when Mahmud Ahmad backpeddled??
Bilal
From Zahid Aziz:
Because it was clear and obvious, and it was done in a legally-constituted court of inquiry. After 1935, the controversy between the Lahore and Qadiani Jamaats continued on the same issues, and was very fierce between 1940 and 1946. See this link.
Read at this link Maulana Muhamamd Ali's khutba of 3 May 1935.
From Zahid Aziz:
To the strange allegation by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in this booklet that:
"It was the late Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, who by his speeches and writings, at first, started this question of Kufr and Islam in our Community. We have never felt the need or necessity to raise it. It is the Lahore Seceders to whom the late Khwaja Sahib belonged who sometimes feel irresistibly inclined to revert to this question…" (p. 11 of https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Political-Solidarity-of-Islam.pdf)
Maulana Muhammad Ali gives the following reply in his khutba of 3rd May 1935:
"It is a pity that the Khalifa sahib did not mention why the late Khwaja sahib raised this question. What was the fault of Khwaja sahib, about whom it is now being alleged that the question of takfir arose because of him? It was that he was giving a series of lectures [i.e., to the general Muslims in India] in which he stated that all those who profess the Kalima hold to the same principles of Islam and are Muslims. The current Khalifa, who was not then the Khalifa, did not like this. He wrote an entire pamphlet to say that the Khwaja sahib was wrong, and that all those who profess the Kalima but have not joined the bai`at of Hazrat Mirza sahib are kafir. So the Khwaja sahib's fault was that he called Muslims as Muslims, and the Khalifa sahib is therefore helpless in having to call them as kafir because the Khwaja sahib called them Muslims. If the Khwaja sahib had not committed this mistake, of calling those who profess the Kalima as Muslims, the Khalifa sahib would not have needed to declare them as kafir!
What a curious logic? And now it is the 'Lahore Seceders' who enjoy raising this question, and they are in reality responsible for why the Khalifa sahib declares Muslims as kafir! Why? Because when they declare those who profess the Kalima to be Muslims, the Khalifa sahib is annoyed and says: No, they are all kafir."
From Bilal:
{Comment 1}
Mr. Aziz,
I checked some of material that you provided. I also re-checked Faruqi.. I cant read urdu…so I dont know that Muhammad Ali said therein. However, it is clear that the Lahoris didnt accuse the Qadianis of changing their position on Takfir til 1954.
If I missed something…please show me. Please provide some type of data between 1935 and 1952 wherein the Lahoris accuse the Qadianis of changing their position on Takfir…
Bilal
From Bilal:
{Comment 3}
Mr. Aziz,
And this is off topic, however, have you seen the reference from Hyat-e-Nasir wherein it is reported that qadyani Writer yaqoub Ali Irfani , who has written that " First khalifa(hakeem Noor uddin) use to recite Long prayers for coming of "second manifestation" from sky ….even after Maghrib prayers he use to call for the prayers for "second miracle" ..
^ Have your Qadiani friends ever commented on this? Why was Noorudin praying for the second manifestation, if, by theory, he was it!
From Bilal:
{Comment 2}
Mr. Aziz,
I re-checked your link, wherein you referenced a biography of Muhammad Ali…It is obvious that Mahmud Ahmad avoided Lahoris, debates and Mubahilas from at least 1935 to 1953. Moreover, in the same biography, it is written that the beliefs of Mahmud Ahmad were changed during the court of Inquiry in 1954…
"Then in December 1936 another proposal was put before Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, that there was no need for the two heads to come together in one location for discussion. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad should write his submission and send it to Maulana Muhammad Ali who would send him back a written reply of the same length within seven days. These two submissions should be published both in Paigham Sulh and in Al-Fazl. There would be six such submissions on each side, the first one being on the issue of takfir (whether a Muslim who does not accept Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad still remains a Muslim) and then on the question of prophethood (whether Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a prophet). Mirza Mahmud Ahmad always rejected these suggestions saying that he was not willing to discuss the question of declaring other Muslims as unbelievers, and that the question of prophethood should be discussed."
Bilal
From Zahid Aziz:
{Re: Comment 1}
You are speaking with hindsight, retrospectively. When you noticed the change of belief in this khutba by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in 1935, you had already read that later in 1954 he clearly changed his belief. When the Lahori elders read this khutba in 1935 there was little reason for them to think that there was a change in belief. So in their comments on it at that time, what they have pointed out is the baseless position he expressed in it, rather than compare it with what he wrote earlier.
Are you not aware that things happen in the world whose significance people don't notice at the time, but looking back in the light of later events they wonder why they didn't? It happens in scientifc discoveries all the time.
From Zahid Aziz:
{Re: Comment 2}
Dear Bilal. I am unable to understand your point.
From Zahid Aziz:
{Re: Comment 3}
We have been long aware of something much more powerful, that shortly after becoming Khalifa Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din issued instructions to the Jamaat to pray for the coming of the "Qudrat Saniyya". His instructions were published by Maulana Muhammad Ali in Al-Hakam, 18 June 1908, p. 4, columns 2-3.
You ask: ">Have your Qadiani friends ever commented on this?"
They may have, but I am not aware of their reply. But why do you call them as our "friends"? You have mentioned in a comment above reading the biography of Maulana Muhammad Ali. Does it present Qadianis as our "friends"?
From Zahid Aziz:
I mentioned above (link) that an article appeared in Paigham Sulh in its issue of 11th May 1935 by Maulana Umar-ud-Din Shimlavi commenting on this khutba by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, referred to by Bilal above. I must admit that I was remiss and negligent in not actually reading this article! It doesn't only comment on that khutba, it notes the attempt to back peddle.
So I have made this two page article available at this link.
Its title is: "Kufr collapsed after much hope and prayer" (Kufr toota khuda khuda kar ke), subtitle: 'Has the Khalifa of Qadian retracted his takfir of the ahl-i Qibla?
In the first paragraph he says that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was adamant on declaring other Muslims as kafir, and arrogantly rejected all attempts by Maulana Muhammad Ali to correct him on this issue. "But now, due to the crisis caused by the Ahrar, he has started to accept non-Ahmadis as Muslims to some extent".
Near the end, referring to the court case in which Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Maulvi Muhammad Husain Batalvi both signed that each would not call the other as kafir, he writes:
"On this Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote that since M.H. Batalvi withdrew his fatwa of kufr due to fear of the court, this is an act of disgrace and proved that he lacked taqwa. This teaches us that if, due to fear of the authorities, to accept Hazrat Mirza sahib as 'Muslim' as an expediency is a disgrace and far from taqwa, then today for political reasons to change the definition of kufr and Islam is not the work of man of taqwa."
So, in reply to Bilal, Lahoris quite obviously took note of the apparent change of stance by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.
From Omar:
I don’t think Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s beliefs ever changed on the issue of Takfir; how could they as he continued to preach the prophethood of the Promised Messiah, the implication of this belief still being that those that don’t accept Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet are outside the pale of Islam for how could anyone remain inside the fold of Islam that rejects a prophet of God; another implication of this belief of course is that the kalima Shahada is now insufficient for a person to remain inside the fold of Islam. And the implications of these beliefs were manifested in how he treated non-Ahmadi Muslims, such as not allowing funeral prayers for them. It’s apparent that it was because of the growing anti-Ahmadiyya sentiment in the 1930s especially with the rise of the Ahrar movement, that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad gave that khutbah. I also understand that it was in the last four years of the life that the famous Sir Muhammad Iqbal (d. 1938), publically denounced the Ahmadiyya movement (i.e. Qadianis), though as late as 1932 he had referred to the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement as having “Muslims who have a sense of honor.” Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, for the sake of his self-crowned khilafat, had to perhaps thus calm the tensions that were brewing up.
In 1954, he was asked about his much earlier statements from 1914. He didn’t say his beliefs changed. The question was put to him:
“You have said in your statement that if a person honestly does not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim, he would still remain a Muslim. Have you held this view from the very beginning?
His reply was “Yes.”
He said wherever he used to the term kafir for non-Ahmadi Muslims, he meant it in only a secondary sense. So he didn’t offer a retraction; rather, he completely contradicted himself. So even if in 1935, he was preaching that non-Ahmadi Muslims are technically inside the fold of Islam, how could Lahoris say his beliefs changed when he still clung to the notion of the Promised Messiah being a prophet, the very basis of which he uses to further the system of Qadiani khilafat? The point is, his words were empty and therefore his back peddling didn’t amount to anything because the practical effect of his beliefs through his actions showed he still regarded non-Ahmadi Muslims as full-fledged kafirs.
Regarding the answers given by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad during the Munir inquiry, Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui says in his book, Truth Triumphs:
“All of the above statements once for all prove that what Mahmud Ahmad, the Khalifa of Qadian and Rabwah, had taken pains to fabricate is only an ‘empty and bogus show’. His 'Khilafat’ is false, and the ‘beliefs’ and ‘doctrines’ as annunciated by him are hollow and without foundation. He has no doubt succeeded in splitting the Ahmadiyya Community into two sections and has seriously damaged the mission of the Promised Messiah and misled the people.” (p. 56, bolding mine)
And as Bilal has pointed out, he completely avoided taking up the debate with Lahoris on the issue of Takfir, but he avoided this from the very beginning when Maulana Muhammad Ali wanted an open discussion about this, the very reason for the Split in the first place.
From Bilal:
Mr. Aziz,
The biography of Muhammad Ali should be changed then. Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqi and his book Truth Triumphs should also be corrected.
Moreover, an english translation of that document should be worked on. The world needs it. And yes, Mahmud Ahmad refused to debate Takfir with the Lahoris after 1922…and he admitted to this in the 1953 Court of Inquiry.
Bilal
From Bilal:
Omar,
Mahmud Ahmad altered his beliefs in terms of Ismuhu Ahmad in 1922. From 1915 to 1921 he had written that the verse of Ismuhu Ahmad referred to MGA, however, in 1922, he had a change of heart and said that it was only a matter of academics. He followed that with a backpeddle on Takfir. In 1911, he began saying that any Muslim who rejects a prophet of God or sent-one was not a Muslim, and he referred to the Quran, as did his brother, Mirza Bashir Ahmad in 1916. However, in 1935, he changed his stance and began to ignore prophethood altogether and thus claimed that he only called people kafir in terms of small Kufr, which most of the sects of Islam in India were fond of. These are facts! Spencer Lavan wrote the same in his famous book on Ahmadiyya.
So please correct yourself here..
And you must remember…practically, Qadianis beleive all Muslims to be Kafirs and even Lahoris, however, outwardly they have a political image to uphold. In fact, Masroor Ahmad, the current Khalifa, banned Facebook for his members…however, he backpeddled a few months later. So this type of behavior has been going for quite some time.
Most of your data is accurate…
Warmly…Bilal
From Zahid Aziz:
You will have read in the biography of Maulana Muhammad Ali that in the Al-Fazl of 26 October 1946 a member of the Qadiani Jamaat from South India issued a challenge to Maulana Muhammad Ali:
“Maulvi Muhammad Ali sahib believes that Hazrat Mirza sahib was a mujaddid and the Promised Messiah but not a prophet, nor can any person become a kafir by denying him, and this was also the belief of Hazrat Mirza sahib. We have challenged him that if he announces his belief in a public meeting under oath, … (etc.)"
If Mirza Mahmud Ahmad changed his belief in 1935 about other Muslims being kafir, why is Maulana Muhammad Ali being challenged by an announcement in Al-Fazl in 1946 to take oath on his belief that other Muslims are not kafir by denying Hazrat Mirza sahib's claim?
Earlier in 1944 the Lahori and Qadiani Jamaats in the village of Data framed an oath for each of their leaders to take about their beliefs respectively (which Maulana Muhammad Ali took in his case). For Mirza Mahmud Ahmad the wording proposed was:
“I, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, knowing Allah the Most High to be witness to this, Who holds my life in His hands, do swear that to my knowledge the belief of the Promised Messiah from 1901 to 1908 was that a person not believing in him is a kafir and excluded from the fold of Islam. The same has also been my belief, from 1901 till this day, on the basis of the belief of the Promised Messiah.”
How could Qadiani Jamaat members propose such an oath for Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in 1944? Did he say in reply: This is not my belief?
So you want us to write in this book that he changed his belief in 1935, while we relate the above history!
From Bilal:
Mr. Aziz,
You ask as to why Muhammad Ali was being challenged in a certain way? Well, this is another Qadiani trick and tactic…when it came to the Lahoris…after 1922, the Qadianis refrained from making comments on Takfir…however, for the Muslims, after 1935, Mahmud Ahmad officially changed his Takfir policy.
These Qadianis could easily take both of the instances to mean Kufr of the lower kind, in terms of Momin, in terms of True Muslim only…
And yes, there are gaps in the research work of Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqi that need to be fixed. In fact, the impression that the reader may get is that Mahmud Ahmad changed his stance in 1953-54, when in reality it was 1935..
Bilal
From Zahid Aziz:
There is a khutba by Maulana Muhammad Ali on 26 April 1940 (Paigham Sulh, 3 May 1940), entitled: "Khalifa of Qadian refuses to enter conclusive debate. The issue of Kufr and Islam is the real root of our difference."
In it he states:
"Everyone knows that for long an argument has been going on about this, and the world knows only that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad considers non-Ahmadis as kafir and excluded from the fold of Islam. He has himself written in his book Ainah-i Sadaqat: … [here he quotes Ainah-i Sadaqat, p. 35] If he has now changed his belief, who is stopping him from declaring this and announcing his new belief that non-Ahmadis have committed kufr of the lower kind and are not excluded from the fold of Islam? … Qadianis consider the khalifa to be infallible. … So Mirza Mahmud Ahmad could say that in 1917 it was correct that non-Ahmadis are kafir and excluded from the fold of Islam even if they have never heard the name of the Promised Messiah, but today in 1940 it is correct that they are not excluded from the fold of Islam, because the khalifa appointed by God cannot commit an error."
It is clear from this khutba that LAM did not consider that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad had changed his belief, despite LAM having noted his khutba of 1935 at the time it was given by him.
Bilal's statement that "These Qadianis could easily take both of the instances to mean Kufr of the lower kind" is quite absurd. It would mean that while challenging Maulana Muhammad Ali to declare his belief that "nor can any person become a kafir or excluded from the fold of Islam by denying him", the challengers themselves held the same belief!
As to Mr Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui's book (with whom I once had dinner), do you expect him to search by hand through all issues of Al-Fazl and Paigham Sulh on paper? He couldn't sit in front of a computer and download scanned images, like you or I. His book is based on the information which had been collected in book form and available to him. I am pleased that he didn't waste his time searching for the actual hour when beliefs were changed. You appear to have caught this obsession for dates from Qadianis (i.e., basing beliefs on determining which page of a book by Hazrat Mirza sahib was written on which date and published on which date).
If there are shortcomings in Mr M.A. Faruqui's research, or indeed mine, at least people can identify who is responsible for it and we cannot evade our responsibility. But what about you? Hiding behind anonymous names (one after another) and issuing Divine-like verdicts from a high pedestal means you are free from any criticism being attached to you.
From Bilal:
Mr. Aziz,
I was researching Ahmadiyya and Takfir and came across the Lahori-Qadiani debate…I then found some errors from an author, Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqi. I simply brought that to your attention. I am sorry if I offended you.
I think the LAM had noted some type of change..however, they were looking for additional hard evidence, which Mahmud Ahmad and his cronies were not willing to give. And honestly, Ahmadis were always changing their beliefs…starting from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the status of Esa (as) to his prophethood and then the use of the word Rasul, which was eventually used as nabi=Rasul, however, that is most likely a cop-out to the true usage of the word by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
And yes, everything that Mahmud Ahmad wrote, inclusing all of his suppositions are fraudulent and absurd and very hard to decipher, and quite purposely so, in fact, the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad contain the same obnoxiosness. And Ahmadis are fond of deleting their history..in official documents, or otherwise re-interpretting. So, in conclusion, Mahmud Ahmad was very evasive after 1922 on Takfir and even after 1935…in court in 1954 he finally gave his detailed answer which is altogether absurd and contrary to the prophethood of MGA. But, as we know, most Indians are naive and use faith over reason.
And yes, I expected high quality research from Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqi, he was an educated man and should have done better research. He had access to 10 times the data that we have today. He in Pakistan in the 1950's and 60's, he had access to magazines like the Zamindar as well as access to Qadian and Lahore and Rabwah…im sure he could have visited Rabwah and Qadian and the Qadianis wouldnt have objected, however, a Sunni-Muslim coming there to do research would be more troublesome…
Moreover, the lahoris even adjusted the DOB of MGA in their writings…as we know, Muhammad Ali published a book in 1916 about the life of MGA, and it clearly said 1839 as the DOB, however, that was later edited. And this is the type of editing I am asking for in terms of the Takfir and change that happened in 1935..not 1953-54.
And why the personal attacks on me?
Bilal
From Zahid Aziz:
And I have shown that Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui made no mistake. Anyone reading the Lahori-Qadiani controversy in pages of Paigham Sulh in the latest period when it raged, 1940-1946, would have it confirmed that Qadianis believed the same at that time as the belief in Ainah-i Sadaqat.
As to access to extensive references by M.A. Faruqui in the 1950s and 60s, let me give you an example. Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi when writing 'Muhammad in World Scriptures' also had "access" to all references, only he had to search for them all over India, and even in England and USA, taking years of travel. But today most are available sitting in front of a computer (even from Merritt College, Oakland, California, as you can test yourself).
Of course I knew it wouldn't be long before you started attacking Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
You write: "But, as we know, most Indians are naive and use faith over reason."
Of course, posting under a false name you can make such observations because they won't stick to you! That's what I meant, which you have described as a "personal attack". Moreover, an unidentifiable person cannot be attacked personally! In whose eyes will your reputation suffer by such an attack made by me, when no one knows who you are? On the other hand, you are attacking other people's reputations.
If your arguments are defeated you simply start posting under another name, and no one would know that your credibility has already been demolished. You are already a proven liar by having used posting names which presented you as something which you were not.
Regarding your last comment, cunningly you have concealed how it was "later edited". Care to explain how it was found out that the date of birth was later edited? How much digging did you have to do to find out? Subsequent to that editing, I further edited the same in the 1980s. Go to an attorney and sign an affidavit accusing me of distortion, fabrication and concealment in this matter. Otherwise it will confirm that you are a coward.
From Bilal:
Mr. Aziz,
You are so rude and obnoxious. And it seems like you wrote that the Qadianis didnt change their Takfir policy in 1935 as the facts prove. That is wrong. In some instances you admit to that. Your writings are very contrary. Can you clarify in terms of your comments here?
And stop with the personal attacks…obviously, MGA was born 1839, and Ahmadis needed to change that to fix a prophecy that failed for MGA.
Bilal
From Zahid Aziz:
You are running away as usual. You had alleged that we had (somehow sneakily) changed the date of birth of Hazrat Mirza sahib in a later edition of 'Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement' from its first edition. But you are not answering the simple question: How did you come to uncover this editing?
You have written above that after 1922 the Qadianis refrained from making comment on takfir. The book Ainah-i Sadaqat in which he most forcefully proclaimed that other Muslims are kafir and outside the fold of Islam says on the front cover: Date of publication 26th December 1921. Its English translation was first published in 1924. So the 1922 theory of our California intellectual and Merritt College scholar goes completely bust.
From Bilal:
Mr. Aziz
The mudslinging from you is epic. Why the hate and wild allegations?
I only asked a few questions about some mistakes and gaps that I noticed in your peoples books. You should make the necessary edits. In fact, the DOB as given by Muhammad Ali was 1839 for MGA, and it was later changed and a footnote was introduced to that effect. I am only asking for the same procedure to happen here in the case of the Takfir of the Qadiani group and the Lahori sources.
Moreover, Mahmud Ahmad confessed in the 1954 Munir Enquiry that since 1922 they had only been calling Muslims as Kafirs sparingly.
Bilal
From Zahid Aziz:
Is it mudslinging or true that you have posted under different names before, and by those names you presented yourself as what you were not?
In a comment above you first said: “And yes, everything that Mahmud Ahmad wrote, including all of his suppositions are fraudulent and absurd and very hard to decipher, and quite purposely so, in fact, the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad contain the same obnoxiosness. And Ahmadis are fond of deleting their history …”
Then you went on to say: “Moreover, the lahoris even adjusted the DOB of MGA in their writings”.
So I connected these two statements and treated it as an allegation of an underhanded change.
You appear to think that the date of 1839 given by Maulana Muhammad Ali was changed later by the publishers of the book and not the author himself. The fact is that Maulana Muhammad Ali himself added that footnote, which begins: “In the first edition of this book, 1839 was given as the date, …”
I think there has been a misunderstanding here. Please read the beginning of my Preface in:
Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement
This book by Maulana Muhammad Ali was first published under a different title in 1918: ‘The Ahmadiyya Movement: I- The Founder’, giving the date of birth as 1839. Then an expanded version by Maulana Muhammad Ali was published in 1937 as ‘Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement’, giving the date as 1836 and adding a footnote, saying that in the “first edition” the date was given as 1839 and explaining reasons for the change. What Maulana Muhammad Ali calls in this footnote as “the first edition of this book” is the 1918 publication. However, the 1937 publication then became known as the “first edition” as it had a new title.
(In the later editions, 1984 and 2008, I added a note to that footnote, clearly marked as Publisher’s Note or Editor’s Note, mentioning 1835 as more probable. I marked it as thus to show that the original footnote was by the author of the book.)
So you have assumed that someone else wrote the footnote, saying “In the first edition of this book…”. If this has caused misunderstanding, then I apologise for it.
From Mohammed Iqbal:
To the ones who come to this forum assuming different fake identities from time to time, it is not mud that should be slung, but dung.
From Bilal:
Mr. Aziz,
Instead of engaging someone in discussion, you are trying to discredit your critics…this is classic tactic. You should be open to my questions, you should be happy to learn a different perspective.
I had no idea whether Muhammad Ali had the dates changed or not, I hadnt checked editions and years. This is a non-issue. The fact is, the date was changed by ALL Ahmadis, collectively, secretarianism didnt matter..this is disturbing. In official newspapers, as late as 1906, Ahmadis didnt object to the 1839 DOB. Why the change? Was there a prophecy that you people were looking to complete? We agree..mirza Ghulam Ahmad made lots of errors…and his followers have been doing the cleanup for 100+ years..and his sons were/are very wicked. And Noorudins family was ripped apart, very unjustly.
So, dear sir, my entire point here is that since some of your scholars and role models made mistakes in terms of the change of Takfir of the sons of Mirza, the books should be updated and newer editions need to be published with additions…and notes. The Qadianis are a wretched group, I admit, however, you people were sloppy in your engagements with them and have allowed them to grow into a poisonous tree.
Bilal
From Zahid Aziz:
We have been learning a "different perspective" for a hundred years!
If you want to correct others' mistakes and errors, you have to prove your own knowledge and credibility first. Have you published any research, other than these short snippets?
If we were "sloppy" and allowed Qadianis to grew into a poisonous tree, this applies much much more to the anti-Ahmadiyya Muslim ulama and their followers who, despite their enormous numbers and power, could not stop Qadianis from growing. Why don't you confront them about their failure? Because you dare not do it, but just brag here. This completely exposes your hollow claims.
From Bilal:
Mr. Aziz
Ok…obviously, you have no desire to change anything…do you at least accept that the Qadianis changed this position on Takfir in 1935 and then avoided "official" discussion on the matter til 1954?
Bilal
From Zahid Aziz:
Why was then there extensive debate between LAM and Qadianis on this between 1939 to 1946? Why were members of the Qadiani Jamaat challenging Maulana Muhammad Ali in the 1940s to take oaths, which he did, that it is his belief and was that of Hazrat Mirza sahib, that no person becomes a kafir by denying Hazrat Mirza sahib's claims? Why did Maulana Muhammad Ali declare in 1940:
"If he [Mirza Mahmud Ahmad] has now changed his belief, who is stopping him from declaring this and announcing his new belief that non-Ahmadis have committed kufr of the lower kind and are not excluded from the fold of Islam?"
From Zahid Aziz:
Why don't you answer my earlier question, instead of trying to divert to other issues like Mi`raj? You said that the LAM, by its "sloppy engagements" with the Qadianis, allowed them to grow into a poisonous tree. So what about the powerful anti-Ahmadiyya ulama and groups? What is your verdict on their inability to stop Qadianis? 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. You have described other anti-Ahmadiyya groups as "third world" type inferior people who couldn't use logic correctly. Please confirm.
As for your own intellectual superiority, you have failed to realize that if LAM had done better against Qadianis (as you believe they ought to have done if they weren't so sloppy), it is the LAM which would have succeeded and the name of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad would have been vindicated and shone brightly. So that would have proved a disaster for you!
From Omar:
Like Maulana Muhammad Ali said in 1940 on the issue of kufr, “When talking to anyone, they [Qadianis] express that belief which suits the listener.” Bilal, if you at least agree with this statement, then your entire discussion and obsession over the point you are so desperately trying to make proves to be inept.
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, after all, employed the same tactic as Paul of the New Testament depending on the audience he was addressing to win people over.
1Corinthians 9:19-23 "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win {Jews;} to those under the law I became as one under the law–though not being myself under the law–that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law–not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ–that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some., I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." (Revised Standard Version)
From Bilal:
Mr. Aziz, with all due respect intended…
You have mentioned that there were debates between the two groups, then you mention how Muhammad Ali perceived some change in the Takfir policy of Mahmud Ahmad (after 1935), however, you are unwilling to edit the book of Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqi to this effect? That is confusing.
I think we agree, in 1935, Mahmud Ahmad changed his policy on Takfir, as Specer Lavan noted and as recently, Adil Hussain Khan in his book titled, "From Sufism to Ahmadiyya" (2015). http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=807413
So what then are you arguing with me about?
Bilal
From Bilal:
Mr. Aziz,
I am saying that the British govt. helped the Qadianis and thus no one could shut down their operation. And even your group, who was closer to them then any other group, were given the silent treatment at times and the run-around on many occasions. And remember, Mahmud Ahmad changed his position on Ismuhu Ahmad fairly easily in 1922 and without any protest from any Qadiani. And I am saying that the internet has damaged Ahmadiyya and this tool is better then anything that the people had in 1891. And I am not sure where are you quoting me from..please clarify..
And I am not boasting of intellectual supremacy, I am boasting of technology that allows me to memorize less and research more.
And i agree with Omar. Mahmud Ahmad was a liar, he lied about everything he ever did, and he was just like father. And here is a question for you..Why couldnt Mirza Ghulam Ahmad give a public speech? And why didnt he ever lead the prayer?
Bilal
From Zahid Aziz:
My response refers to both your comments above.
1. In the prolonged 1939-1946 controversies, our elders never put it to the Qadianis that you have changed your belief on takfir, despite knowing about his 1935 speech. Obviously they didn't consider it a change.
If, as you say, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a liar, then so was Muhammad Ali, and therefore his Jamaat, the LAM, represents falsehood. Why are you then trying to remove a small error from a publication by a group whose beliefs are entirely based on a complete and overwhelming falsehood!
2. You stated that Lahoris were so ineffective that they allowed Qadianis to grow into a poisonous tree. I asked: why couldn't the much more powerful anti-Ahmadiyya stop their growth. You respond that it was because of Brisith government support for Qadianis. British government support stopped in 1947. Qadianis were under British government for 33 years. They have been under Pakistani government for almost 68 years, and still exist in Pakistan! Even under the British government, Muslims could refuse to join the Qadianis, and in fact many Qadianis left their own Jamaat. So why have your own anti-Ahmadiyya been so ineffective while being huge in numbers and resources?
3. Please confirm that as a result of your research you have learnt that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad never gave a public speech. It seems strange that a close relation of mine (in whose house I was born) told me that he attended speeches by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and related to me his manner of delivery.
Here is a question. We are no doubt a small Jamaat. Should we do a course in Small Business Management, or perhaps we need Career Development, or may be we don't have the skills of Critical Thinking and Problem Solving? Could you recommend a suitable course and a good course instructor, preferably in the San Francisco Bay area? Thank you.
From Omar:
To the underhanded comment made by Bilal of referring to the Promised Messiah, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, as a liar, I am reminded of Maulana Muhammad Ali's moving defense of him in which he wrote: (bolding is mine)
"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." (See link).
From Bilal:
Mr. Aziz,
So the LAM leadership didnt see a change in the Takfir policy of Mahmud Ahmad in 1935? Despite knowing about the speeches of Mahmud Ahmad. Ok, I am wiling to accept that argument. However, since it is now proven from 3-4 academic sources, what is your next move?
And you ask as to what is my interest is in the LAM? Since I consider you people as a deviant reaction to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Qadian and the Mirza family. Well, I came across your literature quite recently and your websites and was intrigued to ask more questions.
British support didnt stop in 1947..it is ongoing. In fact, Masroor Ahmad has his headquarters there and they are pretty much above any audting or government inquisition. Their global operation will never be audited and thus this fraud will continue, until a legitmate government bans it for fraud. How can you blame the Muslims who were stuck with this problem since at least 1947? Do you know how Muslims were suffering in Kashmir? Islam had been under vicious attack for the past 300-400 years….and lets remember…Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had a knack for winning cases on appeal, mostly when British judges reviewed his cases, (see the 1904 case, wherein he was guilty, however, somehow won on appeal), in fact, in 1904, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad should have been arrested and thrown in jail.
In terms of public speeches, let it be noted that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad refused to speak at the Aligarh University in 1890 or so, his debate with Athim was through letters and he had a team with him, he coudlnt debate in a public forum, he always had his team with him. Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam was a speech delivered by Maulvi Abdul Kareem (1896) and attributed to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and this trend would continue, Lecture Lahore, Ludhiana and Sialkot (1904) were all delivered by Abdul Kareem, which begs the question as to how a person wouldnt give public lectures? Moreover, we know that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad never led the prayers or any Friday Khutbah and we only hear of him leading 1 janazaa prayer and that was for the same Maulvi Abdul Kareem. Moreover, Khutba Ilhamia has a lack of witnesses and I seriously doubt that anyone understood anything Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said. And finally, if you have witnesses testifying to the fact that they had private sittings with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wherein he gave eloquent speeches I would disagree with them as such.
And finally, in terms of your final question, I advise Lahori-Ahmadis to read their own books and then read the Qadiani books and then conduct more research. And your level of sarcasm is borderline offensive. I am not a Pakistani and I dont understand it.
Bilal
From Bilal:
Mr. Omar,
Im sorry if I have offended you. However, many bad people have lived on this Earth and they have done many good things or supposed good deeds. And we believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wasnt alone, we feel that he had a team working with him. In fact, we think that he wrote braheen e Ahmadiyya, the first 4 volumes, however, Noorudin ordered the publishing of the 5th volume, and the writing style is drastically different. And the Qadianis tried to give the impression that this was written and published in 1905. So the deceptions are deep and very hard to find. And Noorudin asked Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the 1880's as to how he could contribute to Mirza Ghulam ahmad's mission and he was asked to write books, as we look Tasdiq Braheen e Ahmadiyya by Noorudin, the word can see what the writings style of Noorudin was and how it matched Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's books after 1885-ish.
Bilal
From Zahid Aziz:
I have published Bilal's entire response to show blog readers that he indulges in just wild ravings, and he introduces newer topics instead of replying to existing questions. His aim is simply to maximise mud-slinging.
When Mirza Mahmud Ahmad appeared before the Munir Commission in 1954, why didn't he mention his 1935 speech and say that he made his position on takfir clear 19 years before? Why didn't he add this to his statement that "we have been trying to avoid the use of the word kufr since 1922"? The speech-maker of 1935 himself didn't mention his speech just at the moment when it would have helped him so much!
So British support continued helping Qadianis in Pakistan after 1947! My point was, if we were ineffective against Qadianis, so have your anti-Ahmadiyya friends been ineffective. What have they achieved in Pakistan against Qadianis? They stupidly allowed Mirza Tahir Ahmad to escape in 1984, which is how the Qadianis became more global — through your supporters' incompetence! How can British support be helping them in the whole world! So you want the Qadiani organization "banned for fraud by a legitimate government". Have you approached any "legitimate government" to do this and offered your services in proving them to be a fraud? If not, it only exposes your fraud.
In 1891 Hazrat Mirza sahib braved a baying crowd to go into Delhi Jamia Mosque and sit in the mehrab with people shouting at him. In November 1905 he addressed a gathering a person in Amritsar in front of his opponents, till they disrupted his speech and it had to be stopped. Lecture Ludhiana was delivered by him in person. It would have been impossible for Maulvi Abdul Karim to deliver Lecture Ludhiana. Do you know why?
Lecture Lahore and Sialkot were read out by Maulvi Abdul Karim because he had a very loud, clear voice which would reach more of the vast gathering (no sound systems available). But where was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? Sitting alongside him on the stage. After Lecture Lahore was read out, he addressed the gathering personally. On the same visit to Lahore when Lecture Lahore took place, he personally delivered other speeches. Khutbah Ilhamiyya was delivered before more than 300 people. Two people were chosen to write it down and it was published. Debates were in written form so that there was a record of what was said, for other people to read.
Blog readers, please just look at Bilal's comment: "he was guilty, however, somehow won on appeal". If he won on appeal, it means he wasn't guilty!
My final comment was not sarcastic or offensive. Isn't it true that you have given courses to students on Small Business Management, Critical Thinking and Problem Solving, in the San Francisco Bay area?
From Zahid Aziz:
Regarding Bilal's response to Omar ("we believe", "we feel", "we think"), who is this "we"? You mention comparing Urdu writing styles, but in a comment above you wrote: "I cant read urdu". Presumably the "we" can read Udru, but "I" can't read Urdu.
Also, if others did the work which Hazrat Mirza sahib claimed as his own, why did they let him get away with that claim? He had no hold or control over them. There was no Jamaat organization. Why did they accept to suffer opposition from other Muslims for his sake?
From Zahid Aziz:
Particularly as this is the month of Ramadan, I hope Bilal will join us in the following prayers of the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him).
"Our Lord, decide between us and our people with truth, and You are the Best of deciders." (7:89)
"O Allah, help him who helps the religion of Muhammad (may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him) and make us from among them. O Allah, forsake him who forsakes the religion of Muhammad (may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him) and make us not from among them."
The following is a prayer that was written by Maulana Muhammad Ali who strongly advised his Jamaat to say it during Ramadan. Perhaps Bilal will not join in this one as he has declared Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and consequently Maulana Muhammad Ali, to be a liar.
"O God, Your Holy Word that was revealed for the guidance of the world is not being spread even by its believers. But it is Your promise that You will make it prevail in the world. We too heard the voice of one who came to call to Your message (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad), and our feeble hands came forward to take this great burden. It was this voice which revived our dead hearts. But our Jamaat is like an ant facing the mountain of unbelief. It is Your promise that has strengthened our hearts. We need Your help above all. We know we are unworthy and not fit to receive Your help, but, O God, Your religion, Your Quran and Your Prophet are deserving of Your help. Let help for them be today manifested through our hands, may Your light illuminate our dark hearts, and may we witness with our own eyes the fulfilment of Your promise."
From Zahid Aziz:
To Bilal: Please answer the following specific, important questions which arise from what you yourself have been writing above. Any other irrelevant comment you make will not be posted here until you have dealt satisfactorily with the questions below.
1. In their answers to the Munir Commission, did the Qadiani leadership put forward the 1935 speech in support of their answer that they do not call other Muslims as kafir? Here are links to two of their publications consisting of their answers to the Commission: Link 1, Link 2.
2. You allege that the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement has been "sloppy" and ineffective in combating the Qadiani Jamaat. How effective have you been against them? You say that the Qadiani organizations should be banned by a legitimate government. Have you contacted a government and asked it to ban them? Have you approached the government of your own country?
If you have not done this, you are allowing a fraud to continue and withholding evidence against it, and it is you who would be guilty of (as you put it against us) allowing the Qadiani Jamaat to grow into a poisonous tree.
3. You claim to have amassed irrefutable evidence showing the entire Ahmadiyya Movement to be based on falsehood, which no one else ever did before in history. You claim to be the most effective anti-Ahmadiyya fighter in existence today (note: if you don't claim this, let us know of who, you think, is better than you at this).
Does anyone other than you recognize your claims? Are other anti-Ahmadiyya zealots prepared to appoint you as their representative in a debate with us?
From T Ijaz:
In 1926, in the book Dawatul Ameer, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote something similar to 1935, paraphrasing, -God forbid the idea that the non Ahmadis are not Muslims and their Islam is a pretense…
However even today 'Qadiani" Ahmadis don't allow their Imam for prayer to be a non Ahmadi – for they are non-momins as a community
Perhaps it all hinges on what the words 'momin', 'kafir' mean in context
From Zahid Aziz:
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received a letter from a non-Ahmadi in Baluchistan, dated 17th March 1908, saying that a close Ahmadi friend of his, who is a righteous Muslim, does not join the congregational prayers with non-Ahmadis friends, and asking the Promised Messiah to instruct this follower to pray with them since they do not speak ill of the Promised Messiah. The Promised Messiah directed that the following reply be sent to this letter:
"As the maulvis of this country, due to their bigotry, have generally declared us as kafir, and have written fatwas, and the rest of the people are their followers, so if there are any persons who, to clear their own position, make an announcement that they do not follow these maulvis who make others kafir, then it would be allowable [for Ahmadis] to say prayers with them. Otherwise, the man who calls a Muslim as kafir, becomes a kafir himself. So how can we pray behind him? The holy Shari'ah does not permit it."
(Ahmadiyya newspaper Badr, 24-31 December 1908, p 5.)
From Zahid Aziz:
In Paigham Sulh of 14 September 1935, Dr Basharat Ahmad has commented on the 1935 khutbah of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad being discussed above. Here is a link to his article.
In brief, the following is what he writes:
Some people have misunderstood that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad has in this khutbah changed his belief that other Muslims are kafir. In fact, he has not shifted one inch. What he has done is to tell other Muslims: "Just as your Ulama call us as kafir, we call you as kafir. So why are you unhappy with us? Let us both love each other because we both love calling other Muslims as kafir." The other reason he has given is: "Your Ulama believe that all kafirs will necessarily go to hell, but we don't believe that all kafirs will necessarily go to hell." So Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's calling them kafir is not as bad as their calling Ahmadis as kafir, because he is not despatching them to hell, as they are despatching Ahmadis to hell. But this is also his belief about all non-Muslims such as Jews and Christians, that a Jew or a Christian is not necessarily doomed to hell. So there is no difference between his belief about non-Muslims and about other Muslims. On the issue of takfir he has not moved one inch. What he has said relates to punishment in the hereafter. In this world, he treats other Muslims as kafir and excluded from the fold of Islam.
So LAM elders plainly declared in 1935 that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad had not changed at all. The author of 'Truth Triumphs', M. A. Faruqui, was elder son of Dr Basharat Ahmad, and he was a 36 year old adult in 1935 capable of understanding the above article. Why should he, in his book (published in the mid-1960s), say that this change occurred in 1935?