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

May 7th, 2008

Some conclusions

Our friend Bashir has posted the following conclusions he has reached after study.

HMGA was a contradicting author. Hence his followers were left to explain his(HMGA) teachings and prophecies. That’s why the split happened. HMBMA interpreted HMGA’s writings in his own way. M. Ali did the same. So whats the true interpretation. One thing is for sure, HMBMA accused m. Ali of believing that HMGA was a perfect prophet(ummati and nabi) from 1901 to 1911. That is totally incorrect. M. ali wrote this in 1904:

“If the doors of Prophethood had not been closed, then a Muhaddath has elements and potentials of becoming a Prophet and with reference to these elements and potentiality application of word Prophet on a Muhaddath is permissible, i.e., we can say that ‘A Muhaddath is a Prophet’. (Review of Religions, Urdu edition, Vol. 3, 1904, p. 117)

HMBMA had his followers (500k) believe an un-true allegation. It is ironic how HMBMA never commented on this reference. He knew it existed, but he turned a cold shoulder to it. Also, the letter by Syed Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan(written after EGKI) should seal the case. But once again HMBMA never commented on this article. Fact is 95% of 400k people were illiterate. They followed the son of HMGA, irregardless of the issues. HMBMA was able to use the donations from this large body and multiply his jamaat, while M. Ali started from scratch. My estimations show 4 out 5% of literate people joined M. ali. They read about the issues between the two groups. M. ali won the argument. HMBMA won their hearts. When the vietnamese beat the USA in the vietnam war, the vietnamese commented that they didnt win the war in vietnam, they won the political war in the USA. Get the picture?????

One Response to “Some conclusions”

  1. May 7th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    That article in the Urdu Review of Religions, 1904, is in fact part of a serialisation of the Promised Messiah’s book Ainah Kamalat-i Islam, published 1893.

    I would say that M. Ali appealed to logic and reason while Mirza Mahmud Ahmad appealed to emotion.

    “Winning people’s hearts” is perhaps not the right way to describe exploiting people’s emotions and making them live in the realm of fantasy land where they think they have triumphed over the whole world.

Leave a Reply