Arguments based on fiction
Apart from “trick” arguments, it is also to be regretted that members of the Qadiani Jama`at spread arguments based on complete fiction. Here is an example about Sahibzada Abdul Latif shaheed. About a year ago a friend of mine told me that Qadiani Jama`at members had told him:
“Just before Sahibzada Abdul Latif was killed he was asked to renounce his prophet Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He refused, hence his death. This news reached HGMA and he did not rectify this omission regarding his prophethood.”
This is absolute and total fiction, as I explained to my friend in detail, as below.
The whole account of this incident is in the book Tazkirat-ush-Shahadatain by Hazrat Mirza sahib. Sahibzada Abdul Latif accepted him as Mujaddid and as Promised Messiah. This is repeatedly stated in that book. I quote:
- “Sahibzada Abdul Latif told me this: … I could see that the time had
come when a Mujaddid of the Deen should be sent by Allah … then I
heard that a man in Qadian, Punjab, was claiming to be the Promised
Messiah” (Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 20, p. 11) - “During this period of imprisonment the Amir made him an offer several
times that ‘if you repent from the belief that the Qadiani man is
truly the Promised Messiah, you will be released’ ” (p. 51). - “All during the imprisonment the Amir advised him not to accept the
Qadiani man as Promised Messiah and repent from this belief” (p. 52) - “The Amir and the Maulvies knew well that the Qadiani who claims to be
Promised Messiah was against Jihad” (p. 53) - “Even if millions of posters were circulated in that country to prove
with strong arguments that I am the Promised Messiah, they would not
have been as effective as the blood of this martyr” (p. 53) - “At the end of the debate with the Maulvies, the Shaheed was asked, if
this Qadiani man is the Promised Messiah then what do you say about
Jesus? He replied that Jesus has died and will definitely not be
returning … then those people became enflamed, started abusing him
and said: what doubt is there now in his Kufr?” (p. 54)
So the chief reason for the Sahibzada being declared kafir and killed was his belief in the death of Jesus and his acceptance of Hazrat Mirza sahib as the Promised Messiah. His debate with the Maulvies did not discuss at all any claim to prophethood by Hazrat Mirza sahib. Another reason given by Hazrat Mirza sahib as to why the Sahibzada was declared kafir is that he accepted his concept of jihad and thus rejected the Maulvies’ concept of a war-like Jihad.
It is interesting to note that Hazrat Mirza sahib further says:
“The Amir at least ought to have asked his Maulvies: For what kind of kufr have you given the verdict of death by stoning? Why is this difference a matter of kufr? Why didn’t the Amir say to them: Your own sects have great differences among them. Should all of them, except one, be stoned to death?” (p. 56)
Hazrat Mirza sahib says here that the difference of belief for which they declared the Sahibzada as kafir and deservant of death was a difference of the same kind as other sectarian differences of interpretation between various Muslim sects. In other words, differences of beliefs between Ahmadis and other Muslims are of that sort of level.
Also, in his account of the Sahibzada’s stay in Qadian, Hazrat Mirza sahib says he told him about his claim of being a khalifa of the Holy Prophet and he writes:
“I told him that as the Holy Prophet Muhammad was the
khatam-ul-anbiya, and no prophet was to come after him…”
(p. 45).
This was the teaching about prophethood that the Sahibzada was given by Hazrat Mirza sahib.
From Jawad:
Fiction !!! i see a lot of references here but completely ignoring all the facts and context of the Mirza shbs claim. In Sahi muslim it has been mentioned that the imam mehdi will be nabi ullah. Can you please explain. Also the muslim world at large are in concenses that the isa ibn mariam will be ummati nabi. Please explain.
excerpt from aik ghalti ka azaala. Hazrat sahib claimed to be a prophet
“In short, my prophethood is due to my being Muhammad and Ahmad and not by myself: I have been vouchsafed this rank because of my complete annihilation in the Holy Prophet, and thus the sense of the expression 'Khaataman Nabiyyeen (Seal of the prophets) is not at all interfered with. But the advent of an independent prophet like Jesus Christ will certainly be at variance with it.”
—The Removal of a Misunderstanding
From Zahid Aziz:
"In Sahi muslim it has been mentioned that the imam mehdi will be nabi ullah."
Really? Please let us know where in Sahih Muslim it is mentioned that " imam mehdi" (repeat, "imam mehdi") will be nabiullah.
The "consensus" in the Muslim world that you mention (let us suppose it can be called consensus) is that Isa ibn Maryam will be Isa ibn Maryam, and not any other person. Do you accept that consensus?
In the reference you have quoted from "Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala", he says: "my prophethood is due to my being Muhammad and Ahmad and not by myself". So first you have to believe in him as Muhammad and Ahmad, and then because of his being Muhammad and Ahmad you believe him to be a prophet, and not because he is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
Do you believe him to be Muhammad and Ahmad?
From ikram:
As to how a fiction becomes a perceived reality is elaborated by Khwaja Kamaluddin in context of Christianity but equally applies to Qadianis:
As a case in point, I came across this video clip (-link) in Urdu about a Q&A session by late Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib in which he is asked @ 35:14 to elaborate on the causes of split in the Ahmadiyya Jamaat.
Right from the get go the main argument that is put forth by the late Khalifa is that Anjuman was factually created as a façade to legally protect the person of HMGA and not from any need of an independent governing body. Subsequently, Mirza Tahir Ahmad uses it as a justification for the next conniving by QK2 when he subjugated that same independent body. Such an allegedly deceitful message about a Mujaddid (or prophet according to Qadianis) is repugnant to the very dignity and authenticity of the office of a Divine.
Thereafter, he goes into falsehood of alleging that the same Anjuman challenged the writ of Hazrat Nooruddin sahib and the rebuttal by the latter, whereas the facts are to the contrary, but not the subject matter for this discussion.
He makes a lame argument that Khalifa is made by God as a justification for the ‘Khilafat’ of QK2 (implying read “QK-2,3,4,5” instead). Case of Khilafat of Hazrat Abu-Bakr (RA) and Hazrat Nooruddin is beyond question, as only the first successor to the Divine is THE Khalifa. He also makes a swipe at khilafat of Harzat Umar-ibn Khattab (RA) to his advantage, while forgetting that Hazrat Umar was Ameer-ul-Momineen. If his criterion of God making all the Khalifas is taken as correct, then Islam must be in debt of Yazid palid (-the abnoxious) as well!
Towards the end, late Tahir Ahmad sahib makes a self-defeating argument of Lahoris vs. Qadianis that unless the minority overcomes the majority (whatever that means to him), minority is false. While making such an argument, he forgot that Qadiani view is a minority view vs. the rest of the Muslims and they themselves are shrinking by the day. Qadiani Jamaat is surviving only because of their offsprings rather than any new convertees which is quite obvious from video after video of mostly Punjabi faces and Pakistani attires of their audiences, notwithstanding that medium of communication is mostly Urdu. Whereas, the Lahoris school of thought, if nothing else, is endorsed by Al-Azhar (see link). Fact is that the world of Islam is endorsing HMGA via Lahore Jamaat works, not via Qadiani Khilafat. Now, who is growing and who is shrinking, who is truthful and who is false? Maybe QK-5 can answer that.
I wonder how the Qadianis put up with such fabrications, which are self-negating from within the text of their own content and logic, which in itself leaves no further need to seek any historical references or proofs to refute.
From Zahid Aziz:
Ikram writes: "Qadiani Jamaat is surviving only because of their offsprings rather than any new convertees …"
The Qadiani Jamaat is only surviving as Muslims due to the Lahori Jamaat. The Lahori Jamaat has preserved, and indeed developed with arguments, the standpoint which the Qadiani Jamaat uses as a crutch to lean on when in difficulties against other Muslims. Due to the (much maligned and tiny) Lahori Jamaat, the Qadiani Jamaat has been held back from going to further extremes in belief.
If the Lahori Jamaat did not exist, then for a start the Qadiani Jamaat would have gone to a greater extreme in its beliefs at the time of the Split itself, and would have become a separate religion like the Baha'i religion.
This may be (and who can know) part of the Divine plan to save the Promised Messiah's real teachings, namely, that followers would deviate, yet grow in number, but still have the true teachings available through a minority, to which they could revert.
(Note: This is not a "point scoring" comment over the Qadiani Jamaat.)
From Rashid Jahangiri:
Façade to protect the person of Qadiani Khalifas 2,3,4,5….
Qadiani Khalifa 4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad as quoted by Ikram:
“Right from the get go the main argument that is put forth by the late Khalifa is that Anjuman was factually created as a façade to legally protect the person of HMGA and not from any need of an independent governing body.”
Qadiani can NOT give one example from life of HMGA when Sadr-Anjuman or anyone individual was used to protect him, but I can provide numerous examples from lives of Qadinai Khalifa 2, 3, 4. If I dig little I can find examples in life of QK5, and people can find examples from lives of future Qadiani Khalifas.
Example from life of QK2:
QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad encouraged his followers to murder those living in Qadian who questioned his immoral character. QK2 follower Aziz Ahmad received encouragement and murdered Shaheed Fakhar-ud-Din Multani and injured Shaikh Abdur Rehman Misri sahib. Trial court convicted Aziz Ahmad and awarded death penalty. Qadiani Jamaat on instructions of QK2 helped convict financially and legally and appealed against decision in Lahore High Court. There is exhibit in book ‘Tarik-e-Mahmudiyyat’ (History of Mahmudiyat) by son of victim Mazhar-ud-Din Multani. This is a letter on official legal pad of ‘Amoor-e-Ama’ of Qadiani Jamaat providing all sorts of help to perpetrator Aziz Ahmad. Moreover after he was put to death QK2 led his funeral prayer and official jamaat funeral was conducted.
Example from life of QK3:
Readers can read for themselves QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad replies in 1974 National Assembly trial where he accuses his Qadiani followers such as poets, writers and editors of Qadiani Official newspaper Al-Fazal for writing and presenting Qadiani teachings.
Example from life of QK4:
Ahmad Karim Shaikh, who has been the person who helped QK4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad get elected to office of Khalifa by physically throwing out, QK4 opponent to the office, his brother Mirza Rafi Ahmad from the room where election took place, has stated in TV interview that how individuals do illegal activities on encouragement and backing of Qadiani Jamaat. Although apparently it is an act of individual, but gets full support and help of Qadiani Jamaat.
From ikram:
Why blame Maudoodi sahib alone for permitting concubines (see link). Late Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib (QK-4) is not too far behind either as he allows, rather advocates extra-marital conjugal relationships with war captive women. Listen to his response to a question about whom your right hands own or possess (Arabic: mimma malakat aimanukum) @ 1:00 – 18:10 on the same video clip. After listening to him, the fundamental doubt arises about Qadiani claim that it is the God that makes the Qadiani Khalifas. For sure then that God is not God of Quran, in the same manner as Jesus of Bible is different from Jesus of Quran.
If a Qadiani friend on this blog agrees with the answer of the said Khalifa, then we would be quite happy to give Lahori view, rather Quranic rejection of such utter nonsense and immorality of extra-marital relations. I am forced to repeat my earlier assertion – I wonder how the Qadianis put up with such fabrications (about their beliefs and Khalifas), which are self-negating from within the text of their own content and logic, which in itself leaves no further need to seek any historical references or proofs to refute.
From Rashid Jahangiri:
Among Qadianis there are different committees/ societies. Some are of young men, some are of midlife men, and some are of women. Women societies are called LAJNA. These societies were started by QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. Every session of Lajna use to start with all its members to take oath of allegiance to QK2. One very important statement of this oath was, and perhaps still is: ‘Mein Hazoor Ki Londi Hoon’ (Translation: I am Londi [concubine] of Hazoor [QK2]).
From Zahid Aziz:
Shortly after the Split, Paigham Sulh in July 1914 published an extract from a letter written by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to a follower of his, which related to the use of the word 'prophet' for Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The Qadiani Jamaat complained that the extract was quoted out of context. So Paigham Sulh responded by publishing the image of the entire letter in an appendix in August 1914. The beginning of the letter is not relevant to the prophethood issue, but it may be relevant to the present topic.
Below we translate the beginning of this letter. The image of the original can be viewed at this link.
"I have always believed, ever since Allah granted me understanding of the Holy Quran, that the Quran contains the command to marry more than one wife, because Allah says:
[Here he quotes the verse from chapter 4.]
This shows that the real command is to marry two or three or four wives, but if it is feared that justice will not be done then the order is to marry one wife. Now, even in our own language we see that if someone is told, 'Bring two or three of such a thing, but if you cannot lift them then bring them one by one', it is obvious that the real intent of the order is to bring more than one at a time, but if strength is lacking then it is allowed to bring them one by one.
This verse is of the same kind. It is plainly clear from this verse that the intention of God is that more than one wife should be taken in marriage. However, if anyone cannot do justice, he should marry only one. I have held this belief for many years. During the life of Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih [Maulana Nur-ud-Din] with his permission, I used to teach the Quran to some people and have given open dars of it as well. Everyone knows that this has always been my belief. It is not a belief from today but from long ago.
I had put these meanings to Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih and he confirmed them. In fact, his belief was that it is allowed to marry up to nine wives. During his period of khilafat he repeatedly stated: 'If I were not old and feared falling into tribulation, my heart's desire is to show that I can marry nine wives'. He also advised his own son to try to marry nine wives."
(The "nine" mentioned by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad here results from adding "two, and three, and four" mentioned in 4:3 of the Quran.)
From Rashid Jahangiri:
QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad Changing of 3 to 4
It is said that HMGA prophecised that 'Musleh Mahud' will CHANGE 3 TO 4.
QK2 made claim of "Musleh Mahud" and found an interesting way to apply HMGA prophecy and also to fullfil his lust. He married women to keep count of wives to 4. Whenever any of his wife passed away and his wives number dropped from 4 to 3, he use quickly get remarried and have 4th wife. He quickly use to 'change 3 to 4'.
Allah knows what HMGA meant by this prophecy, but QK2 interpreted the way he liked it.
From T Ijaz:
Ikram, regarding concubines and video clip of Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib, the Promised Messiah wrote something similar in Chasma i Marifat I believe
From ikram:
On aaiil.org, a portion of "Chashma-i-Marifat" is translated into English on the following link:
http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mga/revealedbookspecialfeatures/revealedbookspecialfeatures.shtml
HMGA in his usual masterpiece strokes, this time gives understanding of HOW TO SHUN EVIL. After reading it, now I am doubly sure of how wrong is late Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib in his video (link) about extra-marital relationship with war captive women. I say this because, in light of verse 30:30 (link) I, out of my natural conviction state that concubinage is immoral, hence cannot be allowed in Islam. Concubinage will never be found in Quran because there is no conflict within Quran and never is Quran in conflict with human nature. It is not natural to enslave and/or rape and/or prostitute a human, woman in this case.
I do not have access to the reference implied by Mr. T. Ijaz about HMGA statement that concurs with MTA sahib. Can someone provide it?
From Zahid Aziz:
Please see these pages (and read from line 5 of p. 252 to first two lines of p. 255).
From Rashid Jahangiri:
@T. Ijaz,
1- I have read HMGA book pages referred by T. Ijaz and link provided by Dr. Zahid Aziz. My question to Dr. T. Ijaz:
Where HMGA says Londi (concubine/ war captive females) has to be used for sex WITH OUT PERFORMING NIKAH (solemnization of marriage)??? My understanding is that HMGA is saying that War Captive females do NOT have to treated with respect as Muslims treat their sisters and mothers, but it is allowed to marry them.
2- In Lajna (female society) meeting in Qadian and Rabwah female followers of QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad use to take oath before start of every meeting:
'Mein Hazoor Ki Londi Hoon' (I am concubine of QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad)'. So questions i want T. Ijaz to answer:
i-Did Lanja females among QK2 followers came in his possession as War Captives??? If NOT then why elder females of todays Qadianis took this oath???
ii-If Londi only means Concubine with whom their owner/ master is allowed to have sex with out performing Nikah then what Lajna females intent was when they took oath???
From Zahid Aziz:
Rashid, you have written in the present tense under (1), para 2: "do not have to be treated…" and "it is allowed to marry them".
Perhaps you missed that Hazrat Mirza sahib has said the following on these pages:
"It is a matter of great happiness that in our age those who are known as kafir, in their confrontation with Islam, have given up this form of cruelty and abuse. Therefore it is now also not allowable for Muslims to make the prisoners that they capture to be slaves and londis … Since this is no longer that time, and now the unbelievers do not practise that kind of harshness and cruelty against Muslims that they make their men and women as slaves and londis, but rather they are regarded as prisoners of the government, therefore now in this day and age it is also prohibited (na ja'iz) and forbidden (haram) for Muslims to do so against them." (p. 253, footnote)
From ikram:
The following is my summated understanding and deductions with partial quotes of HMGA after reading the pages identified by Dr. Zahid Aziz.
The context of HMGA’s writing is to a significant extent a comparison and contrast of the custom of Niyog in India and the allegation levelled against Quran for abetting concubinage, which too he rebuts.
HMGA is not condoning concubinage, rather he is giving historical reasons of such a practice, if any, that (might have) happened in early Islam in which the attackers, persecutors and torturers of Muslims were (to be) paid back in the same coin, an allowance that even Torah allows. Keep in mind that in early Islam when Quran was not fully revealed then Torah was the closest book for answers to fill in the gaps for any legal questions that might have arisen.
The emphasis of his argument is that Quran does not allow retribution more than what is inflicted on the Muslims. He further states that since Quran encourages a Muslim victim of a bad deed to pay back with a good deed and an inflicted war as a case in point, hence under cost benefit analysis of sin vs. virtue, Muslims are supposed to set free the captives of a war. Without quoting the verse he implies that Quran allows eye for an eye, yet it emphasizes forgiveness instead. It is with this spirit that Quran lays quite a heavy stress on setting a captive of war free rather than allowance of revengeful attitude. Of note is that his writing takes into consideration that Islam allows only a defensive war, thus Muslims were victims of barbarity to begin with. Hence, a victorious Muslim commander, by the very ethics and laws of war of the attackers, reserved the right to handle the captive in the manner the opponents would have dealt with Muslim captives if they had overcome the Muslims.
As a bottom line, setting polemics and discussion aside, HMGA states that in his (and our) times, in a state of war, the non-Muslim enemy does not transgress against the Muslims in the manner of the old, rather handles its captives as prisoners of war, hence it is immoral and sinful (haram) for Muslims to indulge in any sorts concubinage when dealing with an enemy.
From T Ijaz:
So the argument being presented by Hazrat Promised Messiah is extra-marital relations with female prisoners were allowed as a 'tit for tat' since the enemies of Islam were doing the same. So there was a limited concubine system albeit temporarily fully sanctioned in early Islam.
Mr Rashid, do you have a scanned image of the alleged 'we are concubines of Khalifa II" statement? There would have been old workbooks with this printed
From Rashid Jahangiri:
@T. Ijaz:
Lajna Imaillah oath: "I am Concubine (Londi) of Hazoor (QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad)"
I say on oath: Marhoom Abdul Manan Omar sahib (son of Maulana Noor-ud-Din) personally told me that in life of QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad Lajna member females use to take oath before start of every meeting: "I am Londi of Hazoor". He further told me that when QK2 used to … [… sorry Rashid for removing explicit mention of act …] he used to remind her that she took oath 'mein hazoor ki londi hoon' (I am concubine of hazoor) and further in Islam it is allowed with londi'. T. Ijaz you may not believe me, but people who know marhoom Abdul Manan Omar sahib and his scholarly works on Islam including his statement as LAM witness in 1974 Pakistan National Assembly, will believe when they read my statement is ON OATH.
You please do an HONEST research in archives of Lajna proceedings in headship of QK2.
From Zahid Aziz:
Rashid, as regards your words which I deleted from the above comment, please remember that I also have to cater for those people who are silent when Qadiani Jamaat members: (1) call our elders as thiefs, hypocrites, cowards, (2) say that Allah punished our Lahori elders by making their descendants immoral and turn away from Islam, (3) raise objections against the respectable ladies of our Jamaat as regards their attire. But the same silent persons become highly sensitive and complain in case we offend the majesty of the Qadiani Khalifas.
From Rashid Jahangiri:
Dear Zahid bahi, i have no problem with your editing of my comment.
To Mahmudis (those Qadianis who believe QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was "Musleh- Mahud"):
Regarding comment that Dr. Zahid Aziz edited, i say on Oath keeping Allah SWT as my witness: The comment that is edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz was PERSONALLY TOLD TO ME BY LATE ABDUL MANAN OMAR SAHIB.
To LAM members: Victims of QK2 Immorality, one Syed Mubarik Shah (son of Syed Sarwar Shah, companion of HMGA) still alive and living in Hamburg, Germany, and many other personally told stories to late Abdul Manan Omar sahib and his wife late Amtul Rehman Omar sahiba. She was principal of girls school in Qadian and Rabwah.
Syed Mubarik Shah used to call on phone late Abdul Manan Omar sahib, in Delaware, US, from Germany and confess and cry on his sins and asked him to pray for his sins. In 2010 my father in-law Professor Chaudhry Ghulam Rasool sahib was visiting me in California. He is friends with Syed Mubarik Shah. On phone Mubarik shah told Chaudhry Ghulam Rasool sahib that QK2 use to brag about his sexual misconduct.
To Qadiani Jamaat members: QK2 claimed to be Musleh-Mahud (appointee of Allah SWT) so to question his character is fair game if Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS and HMGA challenged their opponents to find faults in their character.
From T Ijaz:
No need for oaths from you mr rashid, I will have to find the earliest Lajna magazine from mid 1920 or early 1930s called Misbah, and the pledge will be printed on it I am sure.
From ikram:
The alleged allowance of concubinage is essentially a validation of debauchery and slavery, which is a grave mistake. This mistake is corrected under a new project on this website “Miracles, Myths, Mistakes And Matters” (link) in the following headings:
“Forced Distortions into Quran, Alas!” (link)
“Case Study 4: Slavery, Concubines, Extra-Marital Relations – Zilch, Nada In Quran!” (link)