The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for the ‘Ahmadiyya issues’ Category

The Constitution of Pakistan makes reference to how to categorise someone as a Muslim or as a non-Muslim. The Holy Quran, however, contains mention not only of believers and non-believers but also of munafiqeen (i.e. hypocrites), as can be seen from even the beginning of Surah Al-Baqarah (believers in 2:3, non-believers in 2:6, hypocrites in 2:8). The first statement in the Quran about hypocrites is the following:

"And there are some people who say: We believe in Allah and the Last Day; and they are not believers." (2:8)

This makes clear that a munafiq can only be from among those who claim to be Muslims. Now we notice that on the Government of Pakistan's official forms where a person is required to state his religion, anyone who declares that he is a Muslim is also required to make certain other declarations. I suggest that a further declaration be added as a requirement for anyone who states that he/she is a Muslim, and it should be as follows:

"In stating that I am a Muslim, I am aware that a person who states that he or she is a Muslim may, in the terminology of the Holy Quran, be a munafiq or hypocrite."

The verse quoted above (2:8) could also be added at this point.

This is what Maulana Muhammad Ali asked Muslims to do in his Friday khutba on the 30th anniversary of the death of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1938. Quoting the verse of the Quran, "I exhort you only to one thing, that you rise up for Allah’s sake by twos and singly; then ponder!" (34:46), he said:

"…when there is an adverse wind blowing against something, people cannot ponder on it rationally by gathering together. The hostile atmosphere does not allow thought and deliberation to be applied in the midst of a gathering. … people are advised to ponder in twos and individually, and ask: what is this man saying,…

Today the same kind of wind of hostility is blowing against the Mujaddid of the age, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. In this atmosphere it has become impossible for anyone to say something good about him, or speak of him approvingly, in a gathering.

In these circumstances the Quran teaches the method of judging by weighing both sides.

If you read books on Islam written by Christians it appears from them as if Islam, the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad possessed no good quality whatsoever, but are full of shortcomings and flaws.

Just as the Christians and the Arya Samaj collect in their books everything they consider to be wrong and objectionable about Islam, the Quran and the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the same is done by anti-Ahmadiyya writers in case of Hazrat Mirza sahib and the Ahmadiyya Movement. They consider it a service to Islam to collect anything which they regard as a defect or weakness, or as an objectionable statement."

Read English translation of full khutba at this link.

It is as relevant and fresh today as when it was first delivered.

In Paigham Sulh, 23 January 1916, there is a lengthy, 3-page article entitled Milad Muhammad (saw) by Khan Bahadar Mirza Sultan Ahmad, who was the eldest son of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. On the first page, last column, I have marked more than a half of the column by a red line in the margin where he deals with the finality of prophethood. To quote from it:

"The second task of the Holy Prophet was Khatm-i nubuwwat. Before the Arabian Prophet, not even one prophet who came claimed khatm-i nubuwwat with the emphasis that our Hazrat (saw) did. The effect of that is that till this day no one in the entire world dared to be a claimant to prophethood after that Khatm-i nubuwwat. … Other religions did not enter into this at all, while within the Islamic world, in fulfilment of [the hadith] 'The Ulama of my Umma are like the prophets of the Israelites', such persons kept on arising who in their own sense possessed the glory of Israelite prophets. No less were the Islamic mujaddids in their blessings. Thousands of such venerable ones have there been in the Umma…

All the prophets gave good news of the coming of our Prophet, and our Prophet gave the good news of hundreds among his own followers who arose in Islam as abdal, aqtab, auliya [saints] and mujaddids. … Prophethood was ended and spiritual benefits were made general in another form."

See at this link the original full article.

In an earlier comment, I had quoted the following verses of the Quran about Aaron and noted what they tell us about his position and mission:

The Quran says that Aaron received revelation like other prophets including Muhammad (saw):

“Surely We have revealed to you (Muhammad) as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him, and We revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, …” (4:163)

Aaron was guided like other prophets:

“…and Noah did We guide before, and of his descendants, David and Solomon and Job and Joseph and Moses and Aaron.” (6:84)

Aaron was appointed as a prophet at Moses’ request because Moses needed his help to conduct his mission:

“And give to me an aider from my family: Aaron, my brother; add to my strength by him, and make him share my task” (20:29-32)

“And my breast straitens, and my tongue is not eloquent, so send for Aaron (too).” (26:13).

“And my brother, Aaron, he is more eloquent in speech than I, so send him with me as a helper to confirm me. Surely I fear that they would reject me. He said: We will strengthen your arm with your brother, and We will give you both an authority, so that they shall not reach you. With Our signs, you two and those who follow you, will triumph.” (28:34-35)

Now here are some more verses.

In the quotations below, I have underlined the words which are grammatically in the dual tense, referring to both. In Arabic, apart from singular and plural, there is also a dual tense for two people.

They were both commanded to go to Pharaoh as two messengers:

“Go you and your brother with My messages and do not be remiss in remembering Me. Go both of you to Pharaoh, surely he is inordinate; then speak to him a gentle word, perhaps he may be mindful or fear. They said: Our Lord, we fear that he may hasten to do us harm or be inordinate. He said: Do not fear, surely I am with you — I do hear and see. So go to him and say: Surely we are two messengers of your Lord…” (20:42-47).

Moses and Aaron are spoken of as both having been given the Book by God and both being guided by God:

“And certainly We conferred a favour on Moses and Aaron. And We delivered them and their people from the mighty distress. And We helped them, so they were triumphant. And We gave them both the clear Book. And We guided them on the right way. And We granted them among the later generations (the salutation): Peace be on Moses and Aaron!” (37:114-120)

It is thus clear that Aaron and Moses performed a joint mission, since the mission was too onerous for one man. Aaron was establishing the shariah along with Moses.

Addition made 15 August 2020:

The Quran in 2:248 refers to the so-called ark of the covenant of the Israelites as containing “the remainder of what the followers (aal) of Moses and the followers (aal) of Aaron have left”. This again shows they had a joint mission.

Addition made 8 November 2023:

“And certainly We gave Moses and Aaron the criterion and a light and a reminder for those who guard against evil,” (21:48). Both Moses and Aaron were given the scripture.

Mr Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui (older brother of Mr N.A. Faruqui) recounted the following incidents in Paigham Sulh, 18 October 1978, which I translate below.

Some time before the founding of Pakistan, probably in 1946, Quaid-i Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah visited Lahore on one of his tours. I was in Lahore in those days. Two memorable events took place at that time, which have remained in my mind till today.

1. A meeting of the Muslim League was held in Lahore. A resolution was presented, probably by Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan, to the effect that "Qadianis", i.e. the Ahmadiyya community, should be declared as non-Muslim on account of some of its beliefs and expelled from membership of the Muslim League. Quaid-i Azam, who was presiding over the meeting, firmly rejected this resolution. He gave as the main reason that a person who recites the Kalima and calls himself a Muslim, and supports our aims, cannot be expelled by us.

2. Taking advantage of this visit, Maulana Muhammad Ali, who was Head of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore, and lived in Muslim Town Lahore, expressed the wish to meet the Quaid-i Azam. The Quaid-i Azam gladly agreed to this, and it was arranged that he would call at Maulana Muhammad Ali's residence in Muslim Town and partake of afternoon tea. The Maulana arranged for tea for about a dozen persons who were members of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at, and somehow I joined this group. Maulvi Yaqub Khan, former editor of 'The Light', was also there. The Quaid-i Azam arrived promptly on time and we all welcomed him and took him to the meeting room.

The Maulana, greeting Quaid-i Azam, lauded his services to the nation and briefly shed light on the propagation work of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at. He then presented Quaid-i Azam with a gift of his writings and other publications of the Movement. Quaid-i Azam smiled and thanked him. He picked up the English translation of the Quran which was on top and said:

"There is a copy of this in my library, and I study it regularly."

Then he stood up and said that he was familiar with the work of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at, and he regularly receives 'The Light', the English weekly, which he reads with special attention. Then he said:

"When I put forward my view for the first time that 'Western style democracy is not suitable for India', it caused an outcry all over the country and there was a storm of criticism. It went to the extent that Lord Wavell, Viceroy of India, sent me a message in Simla saying that he too was puzzled by my view, and asking me to clarify. In those days, I received 'The Light' paper from Lahore which contained an editorial with a cogent and clear discussion on this topic, supporting the validity of this view. I liked it very much and I merely sent Lord Wavell that paper to read. A few days later Lord Wavell returned that paper to me with a note saying that he now understood my point."

This praise by the Quaid-i Azam was a monumental tribute he paid to the work of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at. The late Maulvi Yaqub Khan, editor of 'The Light', was enormously proud of this. The Quaid-i Azam held this favourable opinion about the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at till his dying day.

I translate below an article by Mr N.A. Faruqui published in Paigham Sulh, dated 9 August 1978, at the time when the Supreme Court of Pakistan was hearing the appeal of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto against his death sentence which had been awarded to him in the Lahore High Court. (In this Urdu article Mr Faruqui noted that he wrote his letter to the Chief Justice in English, which was translated into Urdu in the article. As I do not have access to the original English letter, I have translated the Urdu translation of the letter back into English.)

Zahid Aziz.

Correction of a Misunderstanding

In one of the proceedings during the hearing of the appeal in the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of the murder of Nawab Muhammad Ahmad Khan, published in the daily Nawa-i Waqt of Lahore, the impression has been given that I am a Qadiani. Consequently I considered it appropriate to have this misunderstanding cleared by writing a letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The Chief Justice has given me satisfaction by reading out my letter in open court, for which I am grateful to him. However, the manner of its reporting in Nawa-i Waqt of 30th July created again the possibility of a misunderstanding. Therefore I believe it essential to publish, in the newspaper of our Jama'at, the correspondence which I carried out in this connection, so that no misimpression may remain in the minds of our members. Some have also asked me what I have done about this.

My letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan

Lahore, 20th July 1978.

My dear Chief Justice,

I am daring to address you directly because I do not wish this matter to become public before you have considered my application. After that, I leave it up to you to take whatever action you may consider fit.

In the daily Nawa-i Waqt of Lahore, dated 19th July 1978, there is a column headed 'In the Supreme Court'. This is a column which carries news of interest to the public arising in court during the hearings of the appeal in the case of the murder of Nawab Muhammad Ahmad Khan. I am enclosing a cutting.

The news which was printed stated that the senior counsel for the appellant, Mr Yahya Bakhtiar, had said about me, in passing, that I am a Qadiani. Upon this, the senior counsel for the Government of Pakistan, Mr Ijaz Batalvi, corrected this by saying that (during the hearings in the High Court) Mr Masud Ahmad was asked if he, I, and Chaudhry Abdullah are members of the Jama'at Ahmadiyya Lahore, upon which Mr Masud Ahmad denied it about himself but said regarding the others that he did not know. Upon this, an honourable judge of the Supreme Court said: "But everyone knows that N.A. Faruqui is a Qadiani."

With due respect I state that I am not a Qadiani, but I am certainly a member of the Jama'at Ahmadiyya Lahore.

Our Jama'at had long ago, that is, in 1914, under the leadership of Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ali, whose English translation and commentary of the Holy Quran and book 'The Religion of Islam' are of world-wide fame, and Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, who is well known in the world because of the Woking Muslim Mission, separated from the Qadiani Jama'at on those two very points due to which there was agitation in the minds of Muslims in 1974, namely:

1. The Qadiani members attribute a claim of prophethood to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib.

2. The Qadiani members regard those who do not believe in Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib to be kafirs.

We have spent the past sixty years debating with and countering Qadiani members, and have proved that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib did not make a claim to prophethood, and that he himself stated more than once that no Muslim becomes a kafir by denying him. By our separation and our combating them, we have brought upon ourselves the disapproval of the Qadiani members.

Due to the above facts, for me to be called a Qadiani in the highest court of Pakistan, and for this to be confirmed by the words that "everyone knows this", is an injustice against me which has caused me great pain and has created a misimpression about me among my friends and the general public.

I know that ordinary people by mistake consider both the Qadiani Jama'at and the Lahore Jama'at to be the same. But most of the educated and well-informed people are aware of the difference between these two Jama'ats which is fundamental and of principle. Considering in particular that Mr Ijaz Husain Batalvi had corrected the misunderstanding about me, for an honourable judge to say that "everyone knows that N.A. Faruqui is a Qadiani" is a serious misrepresentation of my position. I am aware that the honourable judge did not know the real position. Nonetheless, the fact remains that a wrong impression about me has not only entered the Supreme Court record but has also been published in the press.

I therefore respectfully submit that you take the action which you consider appropriate so that the stain upon my name of being a Qadiani in the Supreme Court record and the press is removed. I would be grateful.

Yours sincerely, N.A. Faruqui

————————-

It was very kind of the Chief Justice of Pakistan that he read out my letter in open court, which clears me. May Allah reward him. However, the report of this event as printed in Nawa-i Waqt of 30th July contained some words which could again give rise to a misunderstanding. Accordingly, I wrote a letter to the Editor of Nawa-i Waqt on the same day, which is given below:

Lahore, 30 July 1978.

Respected Editor of Nawa-i Waqt,

Assalamu alaikum. In your paper of today, 30th July, under the heading 'In the Supreme Court', you have again published a news about me which can create a misunderstanding. Your correspondent writes that in my letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, clarifying my position, I have written that I "do not believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be the last prophet". This could be taken to mean that I believe him to be a prophet, but not the last prophet. I did not write any such words in my letter to the Chief Justice.

I belong to the Jama'at Ahmadiyya Lahore, whose members believe Muhammad mustafa, Ahmad mujtaba, may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him, to be the last prophet from the bottom of their hearts, and do not accept that a prophet can at all come after him. And we consider everyone who recites the Kalima to be a Muslim.

Please publish this letter of mine in a prominent place to remove the misimpression that has been created about me. I would be grateful.

Your servant, N.A. Faruqui

———-

This letter was published in Nawa-i Waqt but not in a prominent place.

Please see this link to the Pew Research Center, which has a report of the above title.

The report states: "Two-in-three Pakistani Muslims say Ahmadis are not Muslims, according to a Pew Research poll conducted in November 2011. Just 7% accept Ahmadis as fellow Muslims, while 26% do not offer a response or say they don’t know."

The 7% and 26% of Muslims (=33%) mentioned here gave this response to this poll. But this same 33% must have declared Ahmadis as non-Muslim when they filled in their ID card forms or passport application forms, because for any person to be recognised as a Muslim in Pakistani law he or she has necessarily to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim. So in fact, by the very definition of a Muslim in Pakistani law, 100% of Muslims there regard Ahmadis as non-Muslim.

Considering the massive scale of the anti-Ahmadiyya propaganda in Pakistan, which is officially backed, and the ban on Ahmadis to counter it, it is actually quite heartening to know that no more than 66% of Muslims there consider Ahmadis as non-Muslim. One would expect this figure to be more than 90%.

Following the link from that page to the full poll, we find that with regard to the statement "there is only one interpretation of Islam", the majority of Muslims in many countries agree with it, and in Pakistan 72% of Muslims agree with it. This is deplorable ignorance. Even the companions of the Holy Prophet differed on various points of interpretation. The four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali) give different rulings on, for example, punishments for various offences.

Members of the Qadiani Jamaat say that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet “without a shariah”. (Note: It is a separate subject as to what he himself meant by this term. Briefly, he meant one spoken to by Allah through wahy-i wilayat, whose revelation has no authority over the principles by which Islamic shariah is derived.)

The question arises, What powers and authority does a prophet without a shariah have, according to the Qadiani Jamaat conception? This question was answered by no less a personage than Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifa 2, in a khutba delivered on 4th July 1924. It can be read on their website www.alislam.org in the collection of his khutbas, Khutbat Mahmud, vol. 8, pages 448 to 460. I have extracted pages 454 to 457 from this which can be read at this link.

In the document at the above link, I have marked the relevant Urdu passages by a red line in the margin, which I translate below. The bolding is mine.

Page 454:

“Thus, those who receive the word of God are not ordinary human beings. … Such persons, whether with a shariah or without, hold the same status. If someone is called “without shariah” it only means that he brought no new command. Otherwise, no one can be a prophet who does not bring shariah. Of course, some bring a new shariah and some bring again the earlier shariah.

Therefore, ‘prophet with a shariah’ means that he is the first to bring the revelation. The Holy Prophet Muhammad is a prophet with a shariah, which means he brought the Quran first, and the Promised Messiah is a prophet without a shariah, which means he was not the first one to bring the Quran. Otherwise, he also brought the Quran.”

Regarding hadith and its transmission by reporters, he writes from the last line of page 454 over to page 455:

“You tell us, if one man hears something from a person’s own mouth, and another man hears it through other people, whose report will be trustworthy? It will be that man’s report who heard it himself. We do not say that the Promised Messiah could abrogate something said by the Holy Prophet Muhammad. But what others say [as to what the Holy Prophet said], is something they heard which was passed from one person to the next. So the question is not whether the Promised Messiah was a prophet with a shariah or without a shariah, but it is a question of the narrators, as to which narrator is more reliable. Is it those ten or twenty narrators who relate a hadith by passing on what they hear from one person to the next, or is it he who is the Messiah of God, who hears from God and tells it?”

Pages 456-457:

“It should also be remembered that when one prophet comes, the knowledge about the previous prophet comes only through him. It cannot be obtained directly. Every prophet is like a hole for viewing the previous prophet. A wall is placed in front of the earlier prophet and nothing of him can be seen except by looking through the prophet who has now come. This is why there is now no Quran except the Quran presented by the Promised Messiah, and no hadith except the hadith seen by the light of the Promised Messiah. And there is no prophet except him who is seen by means of the light cast by the Promised Messiah. In this way, the Holy Prophet Muhammad can only be seen if we look by means of the light of the Promised Messiah. If someone wants to see anything of the Holy Prophet through any means other than the Promised Messiah, he will see nothing. Similarly, if someone tries to see the Quran through other means, the Quran he will see will not be the Quran with which Allah ‘guides whom He pleases’ but it will be the Quran with which Allah ‘leaves in error whom He pleases’.”

Page 457:

“The state of the books of Hadith is that you can draw any conclusion from them. It is the work of a prophet to tell us which hadith is the result of human interference and which is the real word of the Holy Prophet.”

From the entire khutba it is clear that he is addressing his own Jamaat members here, and refuting the belief held by some of them that as the Promised Messiah was a prophet without a shariah therefore his rulings are not conclusive and binding.

We see here that when the reality of the powerlessness of a prophet without a shariah dawned on some members of the Qadiani Jamaat (that such a prophet is akin to the last powerless Mughal emperor of India, who could only do the bidding of the British East India Company!), Mirza Mahmud Ahmad then shifted the status of the Promised Messiah towards that of a prophet with a shariah. Since much of the shariah is based on Hadith, and reports in Hadith have been transmitted and compiled by human beings who were not appointed by Allah, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad exploited this as a loophole to place the revelation of the Promised Messiah over all Hadith. By this trick, he remains in name ‘prophet without a shariah’ but becomes in fact ‘prophet with a shariah’ because he can define and set Islamic shariah through his own revelation!

Let us now see what Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself said about the authority of Hadith.

He writes in three different books as follows. In the first two extracts, he is directly addressing his followers.

“You must value hadith because they are attributed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Unless they are belied by the Quran and Sunna, you also must not belie them. You ought to adhere to the hadith of the Holy Prophet so much so that for everything which you do, and everything which you refrain from doing, you find some support in a hadith. However, if there is a hadith which is in clear conflict with what is explained in the Quran, you must think about making it reconcile with the Quran. Perhaps the conflict is due to your own misunderstanding. If the conflict cannot be resolved by any means, then discard that hadith as not being from the Holy Prophet.” (Kishti-i Nuh, Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 19, p. 63).

“It should be the duty of our Jamaat to act on any hadith which is not in conflict with the Quran and Sunna, no matter how low the standard [of authenticity] of that hadith may be, and to prefer it over man-made Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). And if no solution is found in hadith, not having been found in the Sunna or in the Quran, then they should act on the Hanafi Fiqh.” (Review on debate between Muhammad Husain Batalvi and Abdullah Chakralvi, Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 19, p. 212).

“He who denies those hadith of our Prophet which are free of criticism and not in conflict with the Quran, he is brother of the devil and has surely bought curse for his soul and wasted his faith. The Quran has precedence over everything, and the revelation of the hakam [i.e. the Promised Messiah] has precedence over those hadith which are doubtful, but on condition that his revelation is completely in accord with the Quran, and on condition that those hadith do not accord with the Quran and it is found that their statements are opposed to the statements of the pure scripture [i.e. the Quran].” (Mawahib-ur-Rahman, Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 19, p. 288).

What a world of difference between the great respect shown by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad towards Hadith, and the casual dismissal of Hadith by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as “something they [the narrators] heard which was passed from one person to the next”!

As Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has so carefully elaborated, all hadith are to be accepted and acted upon, except those which are in conflict with the Quran and the Sunna of the Holy Prophet. Even for such hadith, we must do our best to reconcile them with the Quran. It is only if that proves impossible that his revelation has precedence over such hadith (i.e. the hadith which would be rejected anyway), but on condition that his revelation is in accord with the Quran, meaning that his revelation in such cases should be interpreted in such a way that it accords with the Quran.

Anyhow, now Qadiani Jamaat members have to explain how Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet “without a shariah” when their second khalifa says that his revelation occupies a higher position than any hadith whatsoever, because he hears his revelation directly from God while every hadith was heard from a human narrator by a narrator who passed it further down. Therefore, according to this, Islamic shariah is now to be determined by the Quran first, the revelation of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad second, and the hadith third.

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri

1-For last 100 years Qadiani have been saying that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (HMGA) made claim of “Ummati-Nabi” (God forbid).  This is what Qadiani Missionaries are taught in Qadiani Missionary Schools, and this is what every Qadiani (who holds belief that Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was a man of good morals and holder of divine appointment) believes and propagate. Qadianis were able to get away with their lies for over 90 years. Since year 2000, internet has become more common and accessible to young Qadianis. Taking advantage of this ‘great equalizer’ I started challenging Qadianis to provide ONE REFERNCE from HMGA writings where he has written phrase ‘Ummati-Nabi’. And in this regard, in tradition of HMGA, I announced prize money of US$1,000.00 that over the years  I increased to US$ 10,000.00 (Ten Thousand US dollars).  This was quite an unnerving challenge to Qadianis. They tried to “JUSTIFY” their claim by putting different quotations of HMGA together, but FAILED, again FALIED to produce any such a quote from HMGA writings, as demanded. I am willing to increase prize money if Qadianis want.

2-Qadiani Khalifa 4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad realized that his followers, including Qadiani Missionaries can NOT stand up to Lahori-Ahmadis (even those who have rudimentary knowledge of HMGA, Holy Quran and Hadith) in a discussion, so QK4 strictly stopped Qadiani Missionaries from discussing with Lahori-Ahmadis especially on a public forum like internet message boards, and discussion blogs.

3-Qadiani Missionaries are SO SCARED to discuss on blogs that not only they do not discuss with Lahori-Ahmadis but they also do NOT discuss with general Muslims. BUT THESE SHAMELESS CREATURES do not stop from inviting Lahori-Ahmadis and general Muslims to get into discussion with them in closed circles of email recipients.

4-Qadiani Missionary ANSAR RAZA, wrote me an email with attachment in Urdu language, inviting me to discuss NONSENSE of ‘Ummati-Nabi’ in October 2012. I asked him to write me in English and I will post his case on Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement blog [current host blog] and reply to his comments there. He went sleep on my reply but after some prompting he said he will write me in English when he gets time. But NEVER got back to me.

5-In last few days I started receiving emails (as one of the 41 recipients) of Qadiani Missionary in Canada Ansar Raza on the same old Qadiani LIE ‘Ummati-Nabi’. I figured like before, he will ignore me. So I started bouncing back his emails IN HARSH LANGUAGE AND PERSONALLY TARGETTING HIM, TO EMBARRASS HIM, WITH SOLE AIM OF DRAWING HIS ATTENTION AND GETTING HIM TO GET INTO DIRECT DISCUSSION WITH MYSELF. My strategy worked, so he stared writing me in English. So after few exchanges of emails,  I asked him to continue discussion on LAM blog. There are many reasons for it: I- LAM and other references are readily available on line. II-Gives chance to Lahori-Ahmadi and Qadiani scholars and readers to comment and enhance their knowledge, and to correct their misunderstandings and wrong beliefs. III-Information will remain safe and easily accessible to many decades. IV-Current and future generations will learn. V-Qadiani Khalifa 5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad will learn what his missionaries are doing, and QK5 will personally “TEACH” Qadiani Missionary Ansar Raza and other Missionaries. This “personal teaching” of Qadiani Missionaries, including Ansar Raza, will go LONG WAY in correcting status of HMGA in minds of Qadianis.

6-Qadiani Missionary, in Canada, Ansar Raza, has STOPPED CLAIMING that HMGA made claim of ‘Ummati-Nabi’ and has started following another Qadiani strategy. Remember: Qadianis claim that there are 200 Million Qadianis in the world. When you ask them to prove it, as onuses is on them for their claim they make, they shamelessly say, “if you’re saying we (Qadianis) are lying then prove to us that we are NOT 200 million”. Now Qadiani Missionary Ansar Raza says: Prove me from Holy Quran that there cannot be an ‘Ummati-Nabi. Please note he is NOT continuing Qadiani Claim that HMGA made claim of ‘Ummati-Nabi’.

FOLLOWING ARE LAST FEW EMAIL EXCHANGES BETWEEN ME AND QADIANI MISSIONARY, IN CANADA MR. ANSAR RAZA. I HOPE QADIANI MISSIONAY, IN CANADA, WILL DARE TO DISCUSS ISSUE ON ‘UMMATI-NAB’ ON OPEN BLOG…

…

Submitted by Ikram.

Like any vibrant organization, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at Islam (AAIIL) has frequent discussions about its name, “Ahmadiyya”, which unfortunately has been maligned because of Qadianis and their beliefs who also call themselves by the same name. Though named similar, both of these organizations stand poles apart in their beliefs, organizational structure and the core concept of Finality of the Prophethood. Even the mundane issue of the headship of the two organizations is in stark contrast.  The head of AAIIL is a volunteer position, a personal burden for a common citizen who accepts the office without any perks or promised privileges and has no ancestral claims or conflicts of interest. Whereas, a Qadiani Khalifa is a fought for position by various maneuverings of the candidates, where the promises of privileges and conflict of interest including ancestral lineage abound, among other things.

There are arguments for and against giving up the name “Ahmadiyya” because the misunderstandings around it are killing the very message that AAIIL stands for. While trying to clarify its position about the issues that are omnipresent and newer ones that frequently emanate because of Qadianis, AAIIL ends up defending Qadianis by proxy, e.g. every reciter of Kalima is Muslim etc. Many a times AAIIL (aka LAM) ends up between a rock and hard place, i.e. damned if they do and damned if they don’t only to save the Qadianis from themselves. This extra burden is exhausting for each and every AAIIL member in his or her private conversations, speeches and writings. Since time is a precious commodity, a lot of it is lost to wash the indelible stains of Qadianis that incessantly seeps into AAIIL fabric for no fault of latter.

The points of view of those who want to keep the name “Ahmadiyya” is summed up by Late F. K. Durrani of German mission in the foreword of his book – The Ahmadiyya Movement (pub. 1927, link):

“Suggestions are sometimes made that the Ahmadis of the Lahore section ought to give up calling themselves Ahmadis, and then other Muslims will be coming forward to cooperate with them. If the choice were offered to me personally, I would unhesitatingly refuse it. For people who can be held back by a word from a cause with which they otherwise agree are not worth it, and their objection is very often an excuse for not doing anything. When names like Chishti, Naqshbandi, Qadri, Hanbali and heaven knows how many besides are all tolerated, it is not clear why there should be any particular objection to the name Ahmadi, which after all is after the name of the Holy Prophet and defines the characteristics of the movement so well. Besides, the name has a historic significance and possesses a psychological value, and if the name and the character of the organisation are changed in order to please these objectors where is the guarantee that we shall even then obtain the cooperation and that they shall not have some more excuses? For there is no end of excuses for those who do not want to do anything.”

Maybe, the above argument held its weight at the time of its writing when AAIIL was only 13 years old then. Now, it is almost 99 years since its founding and AAIIL has suffered a lot because of the same name that needs no elaboration.

If we look into Quran, a specific name does not even matter to Allah Himself:

17:110. Say: Call on Allah or call on the Beneficent. By whatever (name) you call on Him, He has the best names…

Same we find in the personal example of Seal and Last of the Prophets when he contented to sign the peace treaty of Hudaybiyyah as Muhammad bin Abdullah while striking out with his own pen the signature line mentioning him as the Messenger of Allah, which Ali (RA) earlier refused to do so. He not only compromised on a few words about himself, but for the sake of peace even accepted the apparently humiliating terms. Rest is history when Islam singularly succeeded from the peace that followed and was assured in the Surah Al-Fath that was reveled thereafter:

48:1-3. Surely We have granted you a clear victory, that Allah may cover for you your (alleged)  shortcomings in the past and those to come,  and complete His favour to you and guide you on a right path, and that Allah may help you with a mighty help.

The apparent humiliating feelings of Hudaybiyyah treaty were assuredly rectified by Allah in the peace not only in the land where people could hear the message without any prejudices, but the peace that came to minds of the participants of Hudaybiyyah. How will renaming Ahmadiyya be any different for its adherents, they will have to judge and foretell for themselves:

48:4-5. He it is Who sent down tranquillity into the hearts of the believers that they might add faith to their faith. And Allah’s are the forces of the heavens and the earth, and Allah is ever Knowing, Wise —  that He may make the believers, men and women, enter Gardens in which rivers flow, to abide in them, and remove from them their evil. And that is a mighty achievement with Allah,…

These examples from God and the Prophet tell us that the Divine Himself and Divinely ordained do not miss the forest for the trees which us mortals many a times tend to do so. Prophet Muhammad preferred peace, not only because this is what Islam means and stands for, but also the state of conflict was in itself injurious to his mission.

We are closing in to the Centenary celebrations of our founding. The question of ‘To Be or Not to Be” an Ahmadiyya by name and ‘What’s in the Name’ does not wax me personally, but will be always a question that might not leave us as a Jamaat.

In the meanwhile, the middle path that Rashid Jahangiri and others have suggested is quite pragmatic (Banning of Our Websites in Pakistan – link), which is to differentiate ourselves at every moment and every forum from Qadianis, in the same manner as this site mentions – ‘This is Not a Qadiani Website’ (link). Again, this middle path is what Quran also tells us in the same earlier verse:

17:110. …And do not be loud in your prayer nor be silent in it, and seek a way between these.

While we continue to discuss the issue, not necessarily to decide, we as a Jamaat must not forget the Divine command:

3:103. And hold fast by the covenant of Allah [– the Quran] all together and do not be disunited.

42:13. He has made plain to you the religion which He enjoined upon Noah and which We have revealed to you, and which We enjoined on Abraham and Moses and Jesus — to establish religion and not to be divided in (regard to) it…

Ref: Holy Quran – Translation and Commentary by Maulana Muhammad Ali, edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz.