The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog


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


See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3‎ — completed, 28th June 2013


Archive for the ‘Ahmadiyya issues’ Category

Allegation regarding provision of prostitutes for soldiers

Tuesday, April 6th, 2021

The anti-Ahmadiyya have alleged that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad recommended to the British government of India that British soldiers stationed in India should have prostitutes provided for them from Britain itself.

They have pointed to a passage in volume 1 of the book Mujaddid-i Azam, the biography of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad written by Dr Basharat Ahmad. This volume was published in Urdu in 1939 and its English translation was published as The Great Reformer in 2007. The passage in the published English translation is as follows:

“The British Government had allowed brothels in the military cantonments to service the needs of British soldiers. In order to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, the prostitutes were required to undergo medical examinations periodically. Later, under pressure from the puritanical elements of the British society, the compulsory medical examinations were made illegal. With the change of government in London, a movement was started to restore the medical exams and the London Times wrote several articles in its support.

When Hazrat Mirza learned of this, he published a notice in which he drew the attention of the government to the fact that it was only in Islam that fornication had been declared wrong and sinful under all circumstances. He petitioned the government to find ways to maintain the morals of its soldiers and to stop them from fornicating, but if this could not be done, then the government should import British prostitutes for the Britons. Indian women should not be used to satisfy the lasciviousness of the British soldiers.”
(v. 1, p. 572; underlining is ours. In the original Urdu book, see v. 1, p. 441)

I have underlined the words which are objected to by our critics.

1. Firstly, it appears that there is no writing by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad containing the underlined words. This suggestion of importing prostitutes was in fact made by an Indian newspaper which Hazrat Mirza has merely quoted in his book Arya Dharm. Before quoting it he has commented and emphasised that it is only Islam which prohibits every kind of fornication and provides teachings on its avoidance in all kinds of circumstances.

Therefore, we in the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement have no hesitation in acknowledging that an error has been made in Mujaddid-i Azam in attributing these words to him. Perhaps by a printing mistake some text has been omitted after the words “to stop them from fornicating”, which makes it appear as if the underlined words are being attributed to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

2. Secondly, it may be objected that even if Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not write these words, a close follower of his has done so and thinks it is appropriate advice. But why is this statement objectionable? It is simply saying that if you cannot refrain from this immoral practice then please do not involve our Indian community in it, but go and do it among your own people who regard it as legitimate. Just before this, this statement says:

“it was only in Islam that fornication had been declared wrong and sinful under all circumstances”

This is a practical approach which is adopted today by Muslims living in the West. When they find that certain immoral practices are being promoted by Western people, Muslims say to them: Go and indulge in these yourselves, but do not involve us or our children.

The Quran itself says that fornicating men and women should confine their relations between themselves, and keep separate from the believers (24:3). It also says: “Unclean things are for unclean ones and unclean ones are for unclean things, and good things are for good ones and good ones are for good things” (24:26). Can it be said that the Quran is approving of this immoral behaviour?

3. Thirdly, our critics would not have objected if the above underlined words of the statement had been different as follows:

“… but if this could not be done, then the government should do what many Muslim Ulama advocate to Muslims: that the women of the conquered countries be distributed among the soldiers of the conquering army for use as concubines (sex slaves).”

Why would our critics not object at all to making this recommendation? It is because most of them believe in the allowability of concubines. To show this, we quote from Maulana Maudoodi’s famous commentary of the Quran, Tafheem-ul-Quran, in his footnote 44 to verse 4:24. Maulana Maudoodi writes:

“(1) It is not lawful for a soldier to have conjugal relations with a female prisoner of war as soon as she falls into his hands. The Islamic Law requires that all such women should be handed over to the government which has the right to … … distribute them among the soldiers. A soldier can only have sexual relations with the woman who has been given to him by the govern­ment officially as his property.

(6) While the Shariah has imposed a limit of four on the number of wives (for one man), there is no limit on the number of captive women (for one man)…

(8) The official handing over of the property rights over a slave-girl to a man by the government has the same legal standing as the legal standing of Nikah. Therefore, there is no reason why a man who feels no aversion to Nikah should feel any aversion to sexual enjoyment with a slave-girl.”

Our critics should ponder whether, in accordance with their beliefs about concubines, the Muslim opponents of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad should have suggested to the British government that they adopt these so-called Islamic rules for their soldiers.

— Zahid Aziz

Hadith reports about the age of Jesus

Monday, March 22nd, 2021

Someone by the name of Rifhan Mohamed Ibn Ahmad has sent the following submission, in relation to a thread from 2009.


The Prophet (pbuh) informed me (Hazrath Fatima) that any prophet that comes after another prophet lives half of the life of the prophet before him. And he said to me, Isa ibn Maryam lived for 120 years, so I see that I am going to leave (this world) as 60.

– Dala’il al-Nabuwwah 7:166 – Imam Bayhaqi (rh)

Apart from Dala’il al-Nabuwwah, this statement and its variations
have been narrated in other sources like Musnad Ishaq, al-Ahad wa al-Mathani, Sharh al-Mushkil al-athar and Mujam al-Kabir.

“Aisha (ra) said that, in his illness in which he died, the Holy Prophet (sa) said: ‘Every year Gabriel used to repeat the Holy Quran with me once, but this year he has done it twice. He has informed me that there is no prophet but he lives half as long as the one who preceded him. And he has told me that Jesus lived a hundred and twenty years, and I see that I am about to leave this world at sixty’.”

Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 6, p. 160 Narrated by Fatimatuz-Zahra (ra)

Tabarani says concerning this hadith: “Its narrations are reliable, and it is reported in a number of different versions” Narrated by Aysha (ra)

Mu’jam Tabarani Kabeer Hadith 18464,

Tarikh Damishq 47/481-482 Ibn Asaakir

– Ibn Saa’d’s Tabaqaat Al-Kubra (2/195)

– Mawahib al-Ladinya, vol. 1, p. 42 and Hujjaj al-Kiramah, p. 428

In the Mustadrak Al Hakim, it is reported from Ibn Umar(ra) that Jesus lived to the age of 120 years. – Tafsir Kamalain

“As for what is related about the Messiah that he was raised up to heaven at the age of 33 years, there is no sound authority for this which one could turn to.”

– Zad al-Ma‘ad, vol. i, p. 20 Ibn al-Qayyim

“If Jesus and Moses had been alive, they would have had no choice but to follow me.”

– Kathir vol II, p 245 and al yawaqit wal Jawahir, part 2, page 24; Fath al-Bayan, vol. 2, p. 246; Tafsir Ibn Kathir, under verse 81 of Al Imran, Zurqani, Vol. VI, p. 54, Tibrani Kabeer.

New, revised and expanded edition of ‘The Ahmadiyya Case of South Africa’

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2021

This is an update to the news which I published below.

The page on www.ahmadiyya.org website about this case has been revised. I have added a number of scans from some original documents relating to the case. Please visit this link.


This new edition, revised and expanded by myself, is now available at Amazon:

Amazon UK

Amazon USA

Amazon Canada

The first edition was published in 1987, less than two years after the conclusion of the case.

— Zahid Aziz

Abdullah Yusuf Ali visits Qadian and meets Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din in 1913

Wednesday, February 24th, 2021

Please see below report from Al-Fazl, 22 October 1913, of a visit by Abdullah Yusuf Ali to Qadian where he met the Head of the Movement Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din. It is reported that he was brought there by Dr Mirza Yaqub Baig, who was later a founder-member of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jamaat. Yusuf Ali was at the time in the Indian Civil Service of British rule of India, as stated in the report. Later, of course, he translated the Quran into English in the 1930s.

—Zahid Aziz

Allegation of misquoting the Quran

Saturday, February 6th, 2021

This is further to the point discussed in an earlier post about quotations from the Quran being given, in recognized Islamic literature, in words differing from how they occur in the Quran. (See the earlier post.)

There is a book by Shah Ismail Shaheed (d. 1831) entitled Abaqaat. In the original Arabic book we find the following:

Here a verse of the Quran is quoted in the words: Wa in min qaryat-in illā khalā fī-hā nadhīr — “There is no town (qarya) but a warner appeared in it”. To my knowledge the actual verse in the Quran (35:24) does not say qarya (town) but umma (people).

There is an Urdu translation of Abaqaat by Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani (about him see link 1 and link 2). In his translation this appears as follows:

(This is at the bottom lines of page 401 of his translation, see link).

He has even added before the quotation: “Similarly, the famous Quranic verse” before quoting Wa in min qaryat-in illā khalā fī-hā nadhīr. But this wording does not occur in the Quran!

There are indeed verses in the Quran (three as far as I know) which contain the words nadhīr and qaryat-in. These are 25:51, 34:34 and 43:23, but none of these has this wording.

Most probably, Shah Ismail Shaheed mistakenly recalled qarya as occurring in 35:24, and a century later the translator Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani did not realise this. Human beings make mistakes like these. It doesn’t detract from their high standing and we don’t throw unfounded accusations and slurs at them.

— Zahid Aziz

Speeches at the Annual Lahore Ahmadiyya Gathering, Lahore, December 2020

Monday, December 28th, 2020

The annual gathering of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Lahore took place in Lahore from December 25th to 27th, 2020. It has been taking place on around the same dates since December 1914, and is a continuation of the annual gathering or Jalsa instituted by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in December 1892.

The audio recordings of the speeches are available as follows:

Assessment of Prof. Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi by Lady Judge in Cape Town

Saturday, September 19th, 2020

Professor Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi (d. 2010) of the International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan, appeared for the defence in a court case in Cape Town in 1987. The case was brought by a Sunni Imam, Sheikh Jassiem, against the Sunni Muslim Judicial Council (MJC) and its President and involved a discussion of the point whether Jassiem was right in treating Lahore Ahmadis as Muslims after they had been declared kafir and apostate by the MJC.

Professor Ghazi, who later became Rector of International Islamic University, Islamabad, a judge in the Federal Shariah Court, and later still the Minister of Religious Affairs in Pakistan, testified to prove that Lahore Ahmadis are non-Muslim.

In her judgment of February 1990, the lady Judge Van Den Heever, assessed Ghazi’s testimony as follows:

“He has been involved with various Pakistan government bodies…  As a witness Professor Ghazi has the disadvantage that he correctly concedes that where the government of the day supports an idea that idea flourishes. The Pakistan government having legislatively declared Pakistan Mirzais to be a non-Muslim minority, he himself would have problems on his return home were he to thump any but an anti-Ahmadi tub. That tub he thumped with great vigour, displaying his total bias against Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad]. He concedes that he has the “strongest possible” anti-Ahmedi feelings — a concession it was unnecessary to extract from him since he seldom missed an opportunity of running Mirza down. He was not prepared to give Mirza the benefit of any doubt whatever, to regard him as perhaps bona fide but misguided, but likened him to a “criminal” whose “justification” should not be taken as face value. Of possible interpretations put on Mirza’s words and actions, he always chose the worst. …

… his evidence was often illogical, inferences unjustified. Indeed, he appears to be more interested in the political than the spiritual aspect of Islam…

Advocate de Villiers’s comment to Ghazi “you do seem to make up rules as you go along” or words to that effect, was not without foundation. Ghazi has dual standards for apos­tacy and almost everything else, one for Mirza and one for others.” (pp. 93–95).

 

Use of word ‘rasul’ in Sahih Bukhari and Abu Dawud

Monday, January 27th, 2020

1. A man said to the Holy Prophet:

فَقَالَ الرَّجُلُ آمَنْتُ بِمَا جِئْتَ بِهِ، وَأَنَا رَسُولُ مَنْ وَرَائِي مِنْ قَوْمِي

“I believe in what you have been sent with, and I am a messenger (rasul) of my people whom I have left behind.” (Bukhari, hadith 63)

2. A man was sent to Abu Bakr with a command from the Holy Prophet. The man was called the messenger.

فَأَتَاهُ الرَّسُولُ

“So the messenger (rasul) came to him (Abu Bakr)” (Bukhari, hadith 678).

3. Regarding the same incident:

فَأَتَاهُ الرَّسُولُ فَقَالَ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَأْمُرُكَ أَنْ تُصَلِّيَ بِالنَّاسِ‏.‏

“So the messenger (rasul) came to him and said: The Messenger of Allah commands you to lead people in prayer” (Bukhari, hadith 687).

4. Uthman sent a messenger to call someone to him:

جَاءَ رَسُولُ عُثْمَانَ

“the messenger (rasul) of Uthman came…” (Bukhari, hadith 3696).

5. The Holy Prophet sent a man with a message to Ka‘b ibn Malik. Ka‘b narrated this incident, saying:

إِذَا رَسُولُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَأْتِينِي

“when the messenger (rasul) of the messenger (rasul) of Allah came to me” (Bukhari, hadith 4418).

6. When the Holy Prophet called various clans of the Quraish to gather to listen to him:

أَرْسَلَ رَسُولاً لِيَنْظُرَ مَا هُوَ

Those who could not come “sent a messenger (rasul) to see what it was” (Bukhari, hadith 4770).

7. When the Holy Prophet asked Mu‘adh ibn Jabal certain questions and was pleased with his replies, he said:

الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي وَفَّقَ رَسُولَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ لِمَا يُرْضِي رَسُولَ اللَّهِ

“Praise be to Allah Who granted the messenger (rasul) of the messenger (rasul) of Allah that which pleases the messenger (rasul) of Allah” (Abu Dawud, book 25: ‘Judges’, ch. 11, hadith 3592)

Latest addition to our website

Friday, January 17th, 2020

Those readers interested in the pre-1914 Ahmadiyya beliefs about the claims of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad may find useful the latest addition to our website, which is accessible from this page of contents.

Qadiani Jamaat translation of a statement in ‘Haqiqat-ul-Wahy’

Tuesday, October 29th, 2019

In the Lahore Ahmadiyya literature, a statement by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from an Arabic section in his (largely) Urdu book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy has long been given as follows:

“And I have been called nabi by Allah by way of metaphor, not by way of reality.”

(Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, Zameema, pp. 64–65; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 22, pp. 688–689).

Someone came across the Qadiani Jamaat English translation of the complete book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy and searched for long to find this statement in it, and failing to find it he then asked me where it was. So I looked in the Qadiani English translation and found it in the following words:

“I have been granted the name ‘Prophet’ by Allah, not in its original sense [of being raised independently], but as a subordinate Prophet.” (p. 878)

The statement in Hazrat Mirza sahib’s book is exactly as we have been translating it, the word for metaphor being majaz and the word for reality being haqiqat. A person being called “prophet” by way of metaphor means that he is not a prophet, and Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has made this point further clear by adding: “not by way of reality.”

If there could be any doubt about what he means by metaphor and reality, it is removed by his expla­nation, earlier in the same book, of how prophets of God were called as ‘sons of God’. He writes:

“In the earlier scriptures the perfectly righteous ones have been called sons of God. This also did not mean that in reality (haqiqat) they were sons of God, for this is heresy and God is clear of having sons and daughters. The meaning is, in fact, that God had manifested Himself as an image in the clear mirror of (the hearts of) these perfectly righteous ones. …

As to Jesus being called son of God in the Gospels, if Christians had remained within the limit of saying that just as Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon etc. were called sons of God in a metaphorical (isti‘arah) sense in the books of God, in the same way is Jesus so called, then there would have been no objection. For, just as these prophets were called son metaphorically in the books of the earlier prophets, our Holy Prophet has been called God in some prophecies. The fact is that neither were all those prophets sons of God, nor is the Holy Prophet God. All these are meta­phorical expressions based on love.”

(Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, pp. 63–64; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 22, p. 65–66).

Just as, in the earlier scriptures, prophets had been called ‘sons of God’ or even ‘God’ metaphorically, similarly it was by way of metaphor that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was called ‘prophet’ in his revelation and in a Hadith prophecy about him. According to Islam, the prophets did not become sons of God or God in reality by any stretch of the imagination. However, Christians took Jesus for son of God in reality, which was a great error. This amply illustrates what is meant by meta­phor as opposed to reality. Similarly, Hazrat Mirza sahib was not a prophet in reality, and it is a great error to consider him so.

It is clear that the Qadiani translation of this statement has no justification whatsoever. They have converted “prophet by way of reality” into “independent prophet” and converted “being called prophet by way of metaphor” into “being a subordinate prophet”, while the statement contains no mention of independent or subordinate at all.

— Zahid Aziz